From conversation to oral composition: supporting indigenous students' language for literacy.

Scull, Janet ; Bremner, Patricia

ABSTRACT

The development of oral language and specifically increased control over literate discourse is critical to students' ability to create and comprehend texts in the early years of schooling and beyond. For students with home languages that differ from the forms of language used in school, the development of oral language through carefully designed teacher-student interactions has particular importance in assisting students to access literacy skills and to display the knowledge required for learning in educational settings. This paper reports a study of two teachers providing an early literacy intervention to two Indigenous students and the techniques used in conversational interactions to scaffold oral language and to compose texts for writing. The conversations are closely analysed to reveal patterns in teacher talk that support students' appropriation of literate discourse. The findings indicate that careful attention to students' utterances and the contingent scaffolding of language by teachers, who clearly understand the ways that context-embedded language can be used as a bridge to the context reduced language of school, supports students" development of language for literacy learning.

Key Words

Indigenous students, language and literacy, teacher scaffolding, bilingual learning contexts

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

INTRODUCTION

From the outset it is acknowledged that language and literacy are not unitary skills or competencies but rather, complex, multifaceted, dynamic meaning-making systems that individuals draw upon in social situations to communicate (Clay, 2001 ; Raban, 1999; Rogoff, 1990). Moreover, the leverage that oral language gives to literacy learning has been well established (Clay, 2001 ; Dickinson, Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 2010; McKeown & Beck, 2004; Hill & Lauder, 2009; Neuman, 2001; Richgels, 2004; Yopp & Yopp, 2000) and researchers have long advocated for a culture of classroom teaching that continues to build on and expand students' language competency and to capitalise on the reciprocity of language and literacy teaching that informs and supports students' learning (Clay, 2004; Raban, 1999). As students develop a heightened awareness of language, they are more able to use language with precision and flexibility, transferring knowledge from known contexts to new as they build and extend understandings (Raban, 2001a).

The relationships between oral language and literacy outcomes are now well established. Snow, Burns and Griffin refer to children's 'overall language ability' (1998, p. 111) as related to literacy learning. Similarly, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network (2005) suggests that oral language, conceptualised broadly, impacts on students' literacy learning as they transition to school. Likewise, the National Early Literacy Panel Report Developing Early Literacy (2009) report the aspects of oral language they found related to literacy outcomes. This report notes 'complex aspects of oral language, such as grammar, definitional vocabulary and listening comprehension, as having more substantial predictive relations with later conventional literacy skills' (p. 78). Ultimately, reading and writing involve the construction and reconstruction of meaning. To achieve this, students must have mastery over language as well as knowledge of the world (Dickinson, et al., 2010).

LANGUAGE LEARNING: FROM HOME TO SCHOOL

Parent-child interaction plays a significant role in early language development (Bruner, 1984; Fleer & Raban, 2007; McNaughton, 2002; Raban, 1999, 2001a, 2001 b) with a child's desire to communicate their needs and wants, and the motivation to imitate and experiment with language. Tomasello (1999) suggests that this experimentation results in the creation of novel utterances 'tailored to the exigencies of the particular communicative circumstances' (p. 1). As active language learners, influenced by unspoken rules and regularities (Pinker, 1999), students demonstrate their ability to be both creative and generative language learners with their output influenced by their communicative purposes and intended audience. From this social view of language learning, students are supported to learn the grammatical and sociolinguistic rules of communication that surround them. Through interaction and participation in meaningful events (Raban, 1999; Valdes, Bunch, Snow, Lee & Matos, 2005) and 'language rich learning encounters' (Hamston & Scull, 2007, p. 6), they are supported to learn the linguistic rules required for their active participation in the cultural events in which they engage.

One of the first registers a child learns to use is here-and-now or contextualised language (Cummins, 2001 ; Gibbons, 2002; Raban, 2001 b) which Cummins (2001, p. 64) describes as language that allows students to participate in a 'variety of day-to-day activities that maintain social contacts. It usually occurs in face-to-face contact, and is thus highly dependent on the physical and visual context and on gesture and body language'.

While the language students use before school displays characteristics of here-and-now, context-embedded or contextualised language (Cummins, 2001 ; Gibbons, 2002; Raban, 2001 a; Snow, 1991), it is important to note that students also learn, develop and use context-reduced or decontextualised language skills before school.

Decontextualised language is explained by Raban (2001b) as language that extends ideas beyond the immediate moment, gives the speaker a longer turn, and requires them to supply additional information on the subject matter as the context will not be immediately obvious. She states, 'children with experiences of this kind of language at home will be better able to enter the culture of schooling, a culture that is predicated on developing thinking beyond the school walls' (p. 30).

The relationships between context-embedded and context-reduced language have been discussed by many researchers with an interest in students' language learning (Cummins, 2001 ; Fleer & Raban, 2007; Gibbons, 2002; Hammond & Gibbons, 2001; Hamston & Scull, 2007; McRae, Ainsworth, Cumming, Hughes, Mackay, Price, Rowland, Warhursy, Woods, & Zbar, 2000; Richgels, 2004; Raban, 2001a, 2001b; Schellpellgrell, 2004) with Cummins (2001) describing a context-embedded to context-reduced language continuum. Cummins considers that the further language moves toward the context-reduced extreme of the language continuum, the more abstract and subject specific the language becomes. Raban (2001b) suggests that communicative activities of the classroom can support the development of decontextualised language skills and extended discourse, required for ongoing educational success.

LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY

Although it is critical for students to develop control over a range of language forms, specific to a variety of contexts and purposes, the production and comprehension of decontextualised discourse is regarded as the oral language skill foundational to early literacy learning (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Hill & Launder, 2009; Raban, 2000; Snow 1991). As Christie (2002) asserts, in terms of literacy development it is the mastery of literate language that is one of the most important challenges of schooling. This underlies the importance of students learning to use this more sophisticated form of oral language as a resource for literacy learning. Further, it focuses attention on the ways teachers scaffold students' lexical and grammatical competence, both through the modelling of complex language and in providing contexts for language use.

A focus on language for literacy learning is particularly relevant given the variability in language skills across student groups (Hoff, 2006; Vasilyeva & Waterfall, 2011) and the different language registers that students use in home and school contexts (Raban, 2001a). For Indigenous students, many who move between their Indigenous languages, Aboriginal English--variously constructed as a dialect of English or a language in its own right--and the standard form of Australian English (Berry & Hudson, 1997), the explicit teaching of language has heightened significance. Indeed, Indigenous students need what Rose, Gray and Cowey (1999, p. 30) describe as 'concentrated language encounters' over long periods of time to develop proficiency in English.

Supporting Indigenous students' (English) literacy learning has been the focus of a number of targeted programs. Particularly relevant is the work of Rose, Gray and Cowey (1999) and their teaching reform efforts to build students' linguistic knowledge of texts. However, Bennet and Lancaster (2013) report that in addition to teachers developing skills and understandings to support literacy learning knowledge of how to engage 'Indigenous communities to help Indigenous students' is required (p. 216). Rennie (2006) also recognises the importance of building on students' cultural resources to ensure meaningful connections to the curriculum.

SCAFFOLDING STUDENTS' LANGUAGE LEARNING

Teachers play a significant role in supporting students' language learning, especially when the students' cultural and linguistic resources differ from those of the teacher and classroom. For these students, the act of going to school can be a 'risky business' (McNaughton 2002, p. 18) unless there is a 'meeting of minds' (McNaughton 2002, p. 14) between teacher and student, importantly teachers need a clear understanding of the linguistic resources students bring to school, with this is especially relevant for the teaching of Indigenous students, as articulated by Lo Bianco and Freebody (1997, p. 61): For effective literacy teaching for Indigenous children, including urban children, there must be a clear understanding of the social and communicative functions of Aboriginal Englishes and pidgins, and their lexical and grammatical structures, in order that teachers understand that these language forms are a foundation on which to build in bridging to [Standard Australian English] SAE rather than a source of interference into the learners" use of school English. Acknowledging the value of multilingualism and the many English dialects known by the children of Aboriginal communities, including a recognition of Aboriginal English and Kriols as languages in their own right is a necessary part of such an approach.

Teachers' acknowledgement of Indigenous students as active language learners with rich cultural and linguistic 'funds of knowledge' (Gonzalez, Moll & Amanti, 2005) is a critical foundation on which to build the context-reduced discourses of school, seen as requisites for these students' ongoing educational success.

However, high levels of teacher support are often required to assist Indigenous students' language and literacy learning (Bennett & Lancaster, 2013), particularly students in remote areas of Australia, identified as most at risk of educational failure (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002). Rogoff (1990) describes four ways in which teachers effectively support student learning: firstly, by the way the teacher structures the difficulty level of the task; secondly, through their collaborative participation in the problem-solving; thirdly, by focusing the learner's attention on the task; and finally, by motivating the learner. Evident here is a post-modern constructivist perspective that rejects the view that the locus of knowledge is in the individual; rather learning and understanding are regarded as inherently social with this understanding being integral to conceptual development (Palincsar, 1998, p. 348). Recognised in this orientation is the shift from inter-psychological processing to intra-psychological processing as 'individuals transform their understanding of and responsibility for activities through their own participation' (Rogoff, 1990, p. 196). They take on and appropriate the learning (Rogoff, 1990). Further, Duffy (2003) suggests that the purpose of this teaching is to move from teacher ownership to student ownership. This gradual reduction or gradual release of responsibility (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983)in the amount of assistance provided by the teacher/tutor continues until the student gains experience in responding and builds his or her own understandings.

Processes that support interpersonal to intrapersonal shifts in students' learning are further elaborated by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) who explain how parents support their child's learning through a process of scaffolding. When related to the context of school, scaffolding can be used to describe the nature of the support a teacher provides to a student which enables them to solve a task or achieve a goal that would be beyond their unassisted efforts (Hammond & Gibbons, 2001; Rodgers, 2005). As Sharpe (2001, p. 31) explains, scaffolding is not any form of teacher support but rather 'specific help that enables the learner to achieve a task which would not be possible without support'. When scaffolding is provided on a contingent or point of need basis, student learning is enhanced (Cazden, 2001; Gibbons, 2002; Mercer, 2001; Rodgers, 2005; Sharpe, 2001). Wood (2003) explored this further in his explication of domain, temporal and instructional contingency. He suggests that domain contingency is what teachers focus on when they provide support; temporal contingency is when teachers intervene and provide support; and instructional contingency is how teachers support the learning experience.

An examination of teacher scaffolding to support Indigenous students' oral language learning was the focus of a small-scale research project situated in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. Using case study methods, the research aimed to examine the scaffolding techniques used by two teachers as they supported the language and literacy learning of two Indigenous eight-year-old students. Additionally, the impact of this scaffolding on each student's language and literacy learning was examined.

METHOD

The students in the research project, Grant and Brad, had been identified as the most in need of additional literacy support in the Year 2 cohort of 58 students and at the time of the study were participating in Reading Recovery, an early literacy intervention program (Clay, 2001). Grant, an Indigenous student, spoke Bardi, Kriol and Standard Australian English. Brad, an Indigenous student, spoke a dialect with 'Broome origins' and Standard Australian English. The teacher participants were both experienced Kimberley teachers. Ann was a generalist classroom teacher with postgraduate qualifications in English as Second Language (ESL) and expertise and interest in linguistics. She had taught at the school for nine years. Cath was an experienced teacher who had worked in a variety of educational settings including kindergartens and pre-schools had also been a Principal of a community education centre in a remote town in the east Kimberley region.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The study was performed with approval from the University's Human Research Ethics Committee. According to the information requirement, all teachers and parents were informed of the purpose and design of the study and gave their consent to participate in writing. Pseudonyms are used to support the confidentiality obligations.

Over a 12-week period, three teacher-student interactions for each dyad were video-recorded, as the teachers engaged the students in English conversation with the purpose of composing a short text for writing in English during the students' Reading Recovery lessons. Note that the medium of instruction, as in most Australian schools, is English.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Conversations between the teacher-student dyads were transcribed and analysed using scaffolding codes informed by the work of Cazden (2001), Sharpe (2001), Mercer (2001), Gibbons (2002) and Rodgers (2005). Each teacher turn was coded according to one of six scaffolding categories: (a) telling, when the teacher told or modelled what was required for the next phase of the task, (b) questioning, when the teacher asked the student a question that was related to the next phase of the task, (c) extending, when the teacher extended or built on the student's response, (d) reformulating, when the teacher offered a 'tidied up version' of the student's response (Mercer, 2001, p. 247), (e) affirming, when the teacher acknowledged the students response, and (f) clarifying when the teacher sought clarification from the student. The scaffolding categories, definitions and examples from the transcripts are provided in Table 1.

To ascertain the impact of the teacher scaffolding, students' oral compositions were analysed for grammatical complexity (Derewianka, 1998). The analysis provided information central to each student's developing control and complexity of language use. Consideration was given to the number and type of clauses in simple, compound and complex sentences; the students' lexical choices, including their use of nouns, noun groups and adverbial phrases; alongside their grammatical control, evident through their use of noun-verb agreement, pronoun reference, and their correct use of tense.

The results and discussion that follows describe the patterns in scaffolding techniques the teachers used during conversational interactions to support oral language that contributed to the students' oral compositions.

RESULTS

A total of three teaching interactions for each teacher student dyad were analysed and coded according to the scaffolding techniques identified in Table 1. The frequency and percentage of each scaffolding category for each recorded conversation were obtained to determine whether there were patterns evident in the scaffolding techniques used by each teacher to support the students' participation in conversation towards their oral compositions (see Figure 1).

The analysis of the data showed a clear pattern in the scaffolding techniques used by the teachers to support the students' participation in these conversations. The scaffolding techniques of telling, questioning and affirming were used most frequently in the interactions. When tallied these three categories accounted for 75%, 72% and 79% of Ann's talk turns respectively. Similarly when these most frequently scaffolding categories were tallied for Cath, they accounted for 88%, 84% and 86% of her total talk turns.

The transcript excerpts that follow provide examples of the scaffolding techniques used by the teachers in context.

In Transcript 1, The Orange Bike, Ann predominantly used the scaffolding techniques of questioning with affirming, extending and reformulating also evident. Further analysis of the questions showed that Ann began with an open question about bike riding and then posed a series of questions to prompt and refine Grant's language specific to the topic and his experiences. It is hypothesised that Ann's intimate knowledge of her student and the personal connections she made with him provided the encouragement and motivation for him to continue to engage in conversation. Further her familiarity with his language use allowed her to effectively interpret his intended meaning. This is demonstrated in Grant's response: 'Um, but thing um, this thing um, urn, Leroy tell his dad to put off the thing um uch the training wheels off him, him thing, but he didn't let him" It appears that Grant was working hard to communicate his message, despite the lack of clarity in his reply. Ann skilfully reformulated Grant's response by saying: "So he wants you to keep the training wheels on? 'which provided Grant with a revised, 'tidied-up' version of his ideas and language (Mercer, 2001, p. 247), modelling patterns of usage consistent with Standard Australian English.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In Transcript 2, Manbana, Cath predominantly used the scaffolding techniques of questioning and affirming. Cath's close knowledge of Brad and the encouragement she provided for him to talk about his recent experience were a stimulus for his oral composition. Her use of scaffolding, by affirming, encouraged Brad's participation. For example, when Cath replied with 'mm', 'okay', or 'oh' she was supporting his active engagement in the interaction by acknowledging his contributions to the conversation. It is assumed the underlying message Brad received from Cath's responses was that she was interested and listening intently to what he had to say. She wanted him to know that he was on the right track and that he should continue talking, adding information to his recount of the events, and reformulating his response in the process. The effectiveness of the interactions is considered further in relation to students' oral compositions, as shown in Table 2.

An examination of these texts indicated that both students' oral compositions increased in linguistic complexity over the twelve-week period. These results indicated that the teacher-student interactions supported Grant to shift from composing simple, single clause sentences to compound sentences, with his sentence length increasing from eight to twelve and fourteen words. These texts show control over noun/verb agreement, and correct use of tense and pronoun reference. Brad, who demonstrated greater control over written discourse structures, moved from single compound sentences to composing two sentences, use of both compound and complex sentence structures, with a range of conjunctions evident to join clauses. His text length increased from 22 to 30 words, with effective use of adverbial phrases to indicate time and a range of nouns, including topic specific words, to convey meanings. Clearly, the scaffolding techniques the teachers used supported students' oral compositions and use of decontextualised language, as demonstrated in the students' ability to articulate a short text that could be understood by a non-present audience.

DISCUSSION

The results reported here highlight the carefully considered ways the teachers assisted students to move from conversational, contextualised language forms to more decontextualised, literate language in Standard Australian English. Through the use of a range of scaffolding techniques, the teachers prompted students to extend and elaborate their oral texts. The interactions effectively built on the students' linguistic and cultural competencies and supported their gradual appropriation of literate English discourse.

The data suggest that quality teacher-student interactions with teacher scaffolding by telling and extending, as a form of modelling the target language, supports students' expressive language skills. Furthermore, the opportunities the teacher created for students to hear new vocabulary and syntactic structures in context, allowed these language forms to be gradually added or appropriated into their linguistic repertoires of practice. As Huttenlocher and colleagues (2002) note, teachers who expose students to more complex forms of language in their own talk, developed student's growth in their command over complex syntactical structures in language.

Alongside the modelling of language, teachers' affirming and questioning were also seen to impact positively on students' language use. Affirmations encouraged the students to participate as active interlocutors, providing affective support for their continued participation in the conversation. In addition, teachers' questions both created opportunities for students to contribute to the interaction and put 'a press' (Raban, 2001a) on their language when prompted for extended responses involving more complex language. As these students were required to delve for deeper meaning, and reach for more complex semantic and syntactic layering, vocabulary and syntax language skills were developed (Scull, Paatsch & Raban, 2013). This lead to oral compositions that contained language features that had the capacity to transcend time and space (Raban, 1999), with evidence of students developing use and knowledge of the more decontextualised language features of literate discourse.

Importantly, the teachers purposefully selected a range of responses in their interactions with the students. Scaffolding techniques were used variously, appropriate to context and purpose. This fostered each student's participation and their engagement in talk interactions. As Fleer & Raban (2007) suggest, there is reciprocity between telling, showing and modelling, talking and doing it together, with these strategies supporting students' learning. It is acknowledged that each teacher-student interaction was unique and the scaffolding teachers provided on a moment-by-moment basis was contingent on the linguistic competencies and needs of each student in using English. Transcript examples show that the teachers knew what type of support to provide, why the support was appropriate, when to intervene, and when to fade and release responsibility to the student (Wood, 2003). Hence, the scaffolding provided was predicated on the teachers' understanding of the student with respect to his/her cultural and linguistic 'funds of knowledge' (Gonzalez, Moll & Amanti, 2005). The teachers showed a genuine interest in their students' out-of-school experiences and used these to stimulate and support their conversations. Observed in each teacher-student interaction were teaching decisions that matched the identified needs of Grant and Brad respectively.

The results from this study highlight the ways effective teachers can structure and support students' literacy and language learning by building bridges between their students' cultural and linguistic funds of knowledge and reducing the 'insularity of the language of the classroom' (Moll, Amanti, Neff & Gonzalez, 1992) to create opportunities for rich, meaningful language learning. This approach is supported by the work of Berry and Hudson (1997) who describe the ways Indigenous students move between their home language/s to English as a form of code-switching The findings from this study indicate that students can be supported to move from home language/s to context-embedded (English) language and then to the context-reduced (English) literate discourses of school.

The teachers' interest in their students' 'life-worlds' (Comber & Barnett, 2003, p. 7) was appreciated and this respect and concern encouraged authentic communication. In this nurturing environment the students were motivated to express their ideas and engage in conversation, even if this was challenging. Moreover, the Students knew that their teachers would support them to converse and help to refine their talk into the oral composition of texts. The students clearly became aware of what the task involved and were confident in the kinds of assistance their teachers would provide to support their participation (Scull & Lo Bianco, 2008).

The findings from this study are particular to the participants involved, The generallsability and the transferability the findings to other settings and languages are dependent on the degree to which they are similar to the people, times and places in the study described. Notwithstanding differences in context and languages, principles for practice may be derived for other language teaching contexts. The scaffolding techniques examined might be explored to disrupt the literacy learning trajectories of students experiencing educational underachievement, by expanding the repertoire of teacher language to support students' oral language for literacy and language acquisition gains. Similarly, the ways teachers valued the students' cultural knowledge and personal experiences, and built on this in their conversations might prompt teachers to relate students' knowledge to the curriculum, making teaching and learning processes more relevant to the learners (Rennie, 2006). In addition, future research may benefit from the further analysis of the relationships between students' complex language use to literacy and language acquisition processes more generally.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study highlight the ways teachers can structure and support students' language for literacy learning, extending opportunities for language use and effectively scaffolding their participation in talk. A synthesis of the results suggests that the teachers' knowledge, respect and interest in their students enabled them to provide contingent scaffolding that created links between the students' language use and the new language of schooling. For the Indigenous students in this study, the quality of the interactions, their active engagement in the tasks and the teachers' understandings of their linguistic competencies supported the students to move between Aboriginal languages and dialects, and conversational English language to more literate Standard Australian English discourse required for ongoing educational success in Australia.

REFERENCES

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2002. Australian Social Trends 2002 Education--Participation in Education: Education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 15 October 2012 from http://www.absgov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/2d3206f4f87ba3a7ca2570ec000e2159!Open Document

Bennet, M., and Lancaster, J. 2013. Improving reading in culturally situated contexts, The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 41,2, 208-17

Berry, R. & Hudson, J. 1997 Making the jump. A resource book for teachers of Aboriginal students. Broome: Catholic Education Commission of Western Australia.

Bruner, J. S. 1984. Child's talk: Learning to use language. New York: Norton.

Cazden, C. 2001. Classroom discourse (2nd Edition.) Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Christie, E 2002.The development of abstraction in adolescence in subject English. In M. Schleppegrell & C. Colombi (Eds), Developing advanced literacy in first end second languages: Meaning with power, 45-66, Mahwah, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Clay, M.M. 2001. Change over time in children's literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay M.M. (2004). Talking, reading and writing. Journal of Reading Recovery, Spring, 1-15.

Comber, B. & Barnett, J. 2003. Looking at children's literacy learning. In B. Comber & J. Barnett (Eds.), Look again: Longitudinal studies of children's literacy learning, 1-20. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association.

Cummins, J. 2001. Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd Edition). Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education, 3, 59-84.

Derewianka, B. 1998. A grammar companion for primary teachers. Marrickville, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association (PETA).

Dickinson, D.K., Golinkoff, RM. & Hirsh-Pasek, K. 2010. Speaking out for language: Why language is central to reading development. Educational Researcher, 39, 4, 305-10.

Dickinson, D.K. & Tabors RO. (Eds). 2001. Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Duffy, G.G. 2003. Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills and strategies. New York: The Guildford Press.

Fleer, M. & Raban, B. 2007. Early childhood literacy and numeracy: Building good practice. Department of Education, Science &Training, Commonwealth of Australia.

Gibbons, R 2002. Scaffolding language scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. & Amanti, C. (Eds) 2005. Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hammond, J. & Gibbons, R 2001, What is Scaffolding? In J. Hammond (Ed), Scaffolding teaching and learning in language and literacy education, 1-14 Newtown, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association (PETA).

Hamston, J. & Scull, J. 2007 Extreme(s) makeover: Countering false dichotomies of literacy education in the Australian context. Literacy teaching and learning: An international journal of early literacy learning. 12, 1, 1-18.

Hill, S. & Launder, N. 2009. Bridges between oral language and learning to read: What are the connections between oral language and early reading?' Paper presented at the Australian Literacy Educators' National Conference, Hobart, Tasmania, 9-12 July.

Hoff, E. 2006. How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review, 26, 55-88

Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E. & Levine, S. 2002. Language input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 337-74.

Lo Bianco, J. & Freebody, P 1997. Australian literacies: Informing national policy on literacy education. Melbourne: Language Australia.

McRae, D., Ainsworth, G., Cumming, J., Hughes, R, Mackay, T, Pr, K., Rowland, M., Warhurst, J., Woods, D. & Zbar, V. (2000). What works? Explorations in improving outcomes for Indigenous students. Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association and National Curriculum Service.

McKeown, MG. & Beck, I. L. 2004. Direct and rich vocabulary instruction. In J.E Baumann & E.J. Kame'enui (Eds), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice, 13-27 New York: Guilford Press.

McNaughton, S. 2002. The Meeting of Minds. New Zealand: Learning Media.

Mercer, N. 2001. Language for teaching a language. In C. Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds), English language teaching in its social context, 243-57. London: Routledge.

Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D. & Gonzalez, N. 1992. Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 21, 2, 132-41.

National Early Literacy Panel. (2009). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Jessup, Maryland, National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved 15 October 2012 from http://lincs.ed.gov/ publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Pathways to reading: The role of oral language in the transition to reading, Developmental Psychology, 41, 428-42.

Neuman, S.B. 2001. The role of knowledge in early literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 4, 468-75.

Pearson, PD. & Gallagher, MC. 1983.The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-44.

Pinker, S. 1999. Words and rules: The ingredients of language, New York: Harper Collins.

Palincsar, A.S. 1998. Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-75.

Raban, B. 1999. Language and Learning as Epistemology. In stirring the waters. The influence of Marie Clay, 99-111. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Raban, B. 2000. Just the Beginning. Canberra: Research and Evaluation Branch, International Analysis and Evaluation Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Raban, B. 2001a. Talking to think, learn, and teach. In P.G. Smith (Ed), Talking classrooms: Shaping children's learning through oral language instruction, 27-41. Newark, DE: International Reading Association,

Raban, B. 2001b. Learning, progression and development: Principles for pedagogy and curriculum design. Australian Journal of Childhood, 26, 2, 31-33.

Rennie, J. 2006. Meeting kids at the school gate: The literacy and numeracy practices of a remote Indigenous community. Australian Educational Researcher, 33, 3, 123-42.

Richgels, D. J. 2004. Paying attention to language. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 4, 470-77.

Rodgers, E.M. 2005. Interactions that scaffold reading performance, Journal of Literacy Research. 36, 4, 501-53.

Rogoff, B. 1990. Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rose, D., Gray, B. & Cowey, W. 1999. Scaffolding reading and writing for Indigenous children in school. In R Wignell (Ed) Double power: English literacy and Indigenous education, 23-60. Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia.

Schleppegrell, M.J. 2004. The language of schooling: A functional linguistic perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Inc.

Scull, J. & Lo Bianco, J. 2008. Successful engagement in an early literacy intervention. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8, 1, 123-50.

Scull, J., Paatsch, L. & Raban B. (2013). Young learners: Teachers' questions and prompts as opportunities for children's language development. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 7, 1, 69-91.

Sharpe, T. 2001. Scaffolding in Action: Snapshots from the Classroom. In J. Hammond (Ed), Scaffolding, teaching and learning in language and literacy education, 38-48. NSW, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association (PETA).

Snow, C.E. 1991. The theoretical basis for relationships between language and literacy in development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 6, 1, 5-10.

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S. & Griffin, R (Eds) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Tomasello, M. 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Valdes, G. Bunch, G. Snow, C., Lee. C. & Matos, L. 2005, Enhancing the development of students' language(s). In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds), Preparing teachers for a changing world, 126-68. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vasilyeva, M. & Waterfall, H. 2011. Variability in language development: Relation to socio-economic status and environmental input. In S. B. Neumann & D. K. Dickinson (Eds) Handbook of early literacy research, Volume 3, 36-48. New York NY: The Guilford Press.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Wood, D. 2003. The why? what? when? and how? of tutoring: The development of helping and tutoring skills in children. Literacy, Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 7, 1 & 2, 1-30.

Yopp, H.K. & Yopp, R.H. 2000. Supporting phonemic awareness development in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 54, 2, 130-43.

Dr Janet Scull is an experienced classroom teacher and, as a key author of the Victorian Early Years Literary Program, has contributed to the design of systemic approaches to literacy teaching and learning. She is currently a Senior Lecturer at The University of Melbourne. Her research interests include the relationships between language, literacy and teaching interactions to support children's engagement with text. She is currently working on a number of projects that include a focus on literacy in preschools and teaching to support Indigenous students' literacy learning.

Patricia (Trish) Bremner has more than 25 years' experience as a classroom teacher, reading recovery teacher and adult educator. She has presented to national and international audiences and is an educational consultant for Magabala Books, an Indigenous publishing house. She has a particular interest in supporting educational opportunities provided to Indigenous children and is currently a member of the Teaching and Learning team with the Catholic Education Office of Melbourne. Table 1: Scaffolding codes, definitions and examples. Category Definition Teacher models A technique where the teacher tells or by telling models what is required of the student for the next phase of the task. Teacher models A technique where the teacher asks by questioning questions of the student which relate to what is required for the next phase of the task. Teacher A technique where the teacher extends or extending builds on student responses. Teacher A technique where the teacher listens to reformulating and offers a 'revised, tidied-up version of what was said which fits in better with the point that the teacher wishes to make or the form of response being sought' (Mercer, 2001, p. 247) or 'revoices in more culturally mature formulations' (Cazden 2001, p.76) the student's ideas or language. Teacher A technique where the teacher affirming acknowledges what is going well and follows the student's response. Teacher A technique where the teacher elucidates clarifying further information to clarify what the student has said. Category Examples Teacher models Teacher: This book is a fairytale by telling and it begins like this ... 'Once upon a time' Teacher models Teacher: And who comes to visit by questioning the three bears in this story? Teacher Student: He's biting it. extending Teacher: He's biting it because he is hungry. Teacher Student: But it's get hot. reformulating Teacher: It might get hot. Teacher Student: On the jetty? affirming Teacher: It looks like a jetty doesn't it? Teacher Student: that thing you might clarifying break it if you push too hard. Teacher: The pedal? Transcript 1: The Orange Bike Teacher--Ann Student--Grant Scaffolding Speaker Text techniques T Can you think of a sentence to talk about Questioning your bike riding? S Shrugs shoulders T Have you had a go on Leroy's bike? Questioning S Um, yeah T Can you ride that bike now? Questioning S Um, but thing um, this thing um, um, Leroy tell his dad to put off the thing um thing um uch the training wheels off him, him thing, but he didn't let him. T So you think you can ride it without the Questioning training wheels now? S Uh--no! T So you like it with training wheels on? Questioning S Nah, but thing, um, what's that? Leroy's bung dad he won't let, he won't let us ride it with two wheels on it. He couldn't let us thing, or else we'll fall if we ride it T Yeah Affirming T So he wants you to keep the training Reformulating wheels on? S I went over, I went over to Leroy's house T and Extending S and he had a he had a present, had a present, a bike and it's nah a T and it was Reformulating S and it was orange, an orange bike T Wow, okay let's go Affirming S I went over to Leroy's house and he a present, an orange bike Table 2: Oral Compositions by Grant and Brad Grant 1 At school I get to ring the bell. 2 I went over to Leroy's house and he had a present, an orange bike. 3 My dad was at the hospital and the doctors fixed him up. Brad 1 Tuesday morning me and my class went to Manbana and when we got there we looked at the spears and the rafts. 2 Every morning when somebody gets 'it', they be 'it' with the person that's already 'it'. 3 On Saturday morning we went fishing and then we got some bait but we didn't catch anything in the creek. Transcript 2: Manbana Teacher--Cath Student--Brad Scaffolding Speaker Text techniques T And then what did you do? Questioning S We saw a dog, went outside, told us some trees. T Okay Affirming S And asked us and answered one. T And he asked if anybody knew what they were? Reformulating S Yeah T And you knew? Clarifying T Can you remember what tree it was? Questioning S Well 1 answered the first one. T Oh, okay Affirming S It was a Gubinge tree T OK ah you know the Gubinge tree Affirming T and then what happened? Questioning S Ah sat us under some trees and just like this camping spot T Mm Affirming S Sat down, talked, then he went to the next place which was the fishes T Oh that was a good bit. Affirming S And we saw some catfish and some stonefish T Oh, mm Affirming S And um then he moved on to the big fish, which was really big T Oh, how big? Clarifying S Like this (opened arms wide) T And what did you think when you saw them? Questioning S I wish I had a line T How could we start the story? What would be a Questioning good way to start? S Yesterday T Perfect Affirming S Tuesday morning T Oh, we could start with Tuesday morning. Affirming S Tuesday morning I went to Manbana and when we got into Manbana we had a look at the spears and rafts. T One more time so I can write it down and Telling I've got it S Tuesday morning, me and my class went to Manbana and when we got there we had a look at the spears and the rafts. Figure 1: Frequency and percentage of the scaffolding techniques used to support' oral composition. Telling Questioning Extending Ann conversion 1 25% n=8 22% n=7 9% n=3 n = 32 Ann conversion 2 14% n=4 36% n=10 7% n=2 n = 28 Ann conversion 2 21% n=7 29% n=10 9% n=3 n = 34 Cath conversations 1 10% n=5 37% n=18 2% n=1 n = 49 Cath conversations 1 13% n=4 26% n=8 10% n=3 n = 3 Cath conversations 1 14% n=8 29% n=16 5% n=3 n = 56 Reformulating Affirming Clarifying Ann conversion 1 3% n=1 28% n=9 13% n=4 n = 32 Ann conversion 2 14% n=4 21% n=6 7% n=2 n = 28 Ann conversion 2 29% n=10 12% n=4 n = 34 Cath conversations 1 2% n=1 41% n=20 8% n=4 n = 49 Cath conversations 1 45% n=14 3% n=1 n = 3 Cath conversations 1 43% n=14 9% n=5 n = 56 Note: Table made from Pie chart.