The theme “All is All” encapsulated a set of characteristics that exemplified how an interactional synchrony was possible between all members of a classroom. This could only be done if the lead teacher was cognizant of power asymmetries and strove to create an egalitarian relationship between all members of the classroom; i.e., adults and children. An egalitarian atmosphere was possible if all members of a classroom had a way to communicate with each other, and the teacher made sure that each member had access to some type of personal voice to at least learn to interact. A teacher’s awareness of power asymmetries was demonstrated through purposeful and empathic adjustments in verbal discourse characteristics and non-verbal
behaviors to meet the needs of all learners. In addition, students in this type of classroom often emulated their teachers’ behaviors by demonstrating an empathic and respectful attunement to their peers’ moods and communicative idiosyncrasies. Ms. Argus and her teaching assistant, Hestia, created a relational space that was synchronous and most consistently exemplified the theme, “All is All”.
Ms. Argus saw and sensed things that no one else perceived. Ms. Argus and her aide, Hestia, deftly weaved in and out of children’s spaces quietly managing one situation after another. The children seemed quite responsive to their suggestions and behaviors; they also smiled, nodded, affirmed, asked for hugs, or otherwise demonstrated behaviors that showed they liked to sit next to, listen to, and help Ms. Argus with classroom jobs. In turn, Ms. Argus and Hestia were mindful of each student’s perspective, cognizant of each student’s abilities and respectful of each child’s need for autonomy. Ms. Argus and Hestia fluidly coordinated their
movements around classroom objects and entities, exchanged knowing glances, and paid attention to each other’s nonverbal behaviors. Their harmonious guidance set the stage for the creation of a relational habitus in which many things happened that were conducive to students using and learning CRWs.
Setting the stage for relational language. Ms. Argus was alert to any disharmony in her flock and rapidly responded to power imbalances or student transgressions by seeking different perspectives, engaging students in the process of social problem solving, and avoiding person- centered judgments. This teacher’s priority was to build a trusting relationship with all her students and create interactional synchrony (Schmidt et al., 2012) within her classroom. Ms. Argus stated that communication was the foundational skill needed for relationship building and that without communication, early learning was not possible. To that end, Ms. Argus created a relational habitus in which members were well-attuned to one another and supportive of different ways of communicating.
The instructional assistants emulated Ms. Argus’ verbal and nonverbal instructional characteristics and seemed to recognize that Ms. Argus was cognizant of power asymmetries and strove for egalitarianism between adults and children. Numerous times the instructional
assistants would intentionally adjust their body positions in an attempt to re-balance power during adult-child interactions. Ms. Argus pointed out, “we need to get at their level” and “we need to be careful we are not perceived as dominating or controlling them.” As such, I observed all of the educators dropping to one knee, squatting, or sitting, to be at their students’ eye level during most interactions. Verbal language was adjusted at the same time to empathically respond to the students’ language comprehension and social-emotional needs. During these personalized interactions, Ms. Argus and Hestia offered words of encouragement, rationalized disciplinary
action or explained decisions. During Ms. Argus’ very first interview, I got a sense of how she managed her classroom when she explained:
I think ultimately, the most important thing is that I’ve worked really hard, as have the rest of the staff, to build a relationship. Children care if they’re not participating. Like, all [vocally emphasized] of the kids want [vocally
emphasized]to be a part of the group. They want [vocally emphasized] to be a part of our classroom community. It’s important to them.
This teacher felt that all children should have equal opportunities to learn and she coached her instructional assistants to think intentionally about how to facilitate language in all activities. The question she asked was, “how can we make this work for all our students?”
Impact of pedagogical beliefs. Ms. Argus expressed that learning new things was possible for anyone, no matter what their ability or disability, and proved this by implementing various tools (e.g., picture supports; aided AAC systems) and tactics (communication partner strategies) to make sure the children who needed these supports to learn had them available. Ms. Argus also stated that teaching could happen anywhere, and at any time, as long as the children were invested, interested, and had “a voice”. Ms. Argus felt it was her job to get children interested in learning new things, but that adults had to pay attention to what children were interested in and follow their lead. For example, Ms. Argus said:
[The] sudden learning opportunities are what I love the most! Because sometimes I think that people think it has to be like…all these things have to be directly taught, and you have to sit kids down, and that…teachers are these magic
fountains of knowledge, and really, [the students] are the fountains of knowledge, and we just have to, kind of facilitate a little bit, and be in the right place at the right time (laughing).
This teacher’s expressed pedagogical belief suggested a socially constructed world-view in which children learned from each other. Ms. Argus explained that it was a teacher’s job to try and see the child’s perspective, to try and understand how the child thinks and to teach
Argus also explained that she believes that a young child’s behavior is a response to what occurred in a particular context, at a particular point in time and that a single behavior or set of behaviors should not define a child. She expounds by giving an example regarding a particular student with CCN.
I’m a firm believer that behavior is just communication and when you see
behavior, [they’re] trying to communicate, and then, what can we do about it? For me, what it’s communicating is, ‘I can’t tell you what I want and need and I’m frustrated and I don’t feel you respect me as a person’ which I think is really, really important to him…if more people just looked at him like he was this amazing person, then it would change their perspective in how they approach [his behavior]. Because I view him as a little amazing person that has unlimited potential. I think sometimes people see a diagnosis, and they see scores…it changes their perspective.
Ms. Argus stated that all children must learn that they can affect change in the world and that the world just doesn’t change them. She told a story of how she rejected affixing an
intellectual score to a preschooler and how she wished to avoid any incident that some adult in power would believe her students couldn’t learn. This point of view suggested she operated within a dynamic-learning frame (Johnston, 2012) that has been shown to boost situated learning (Dweck, 2006; Johnston, 2012; Korthagen, 2010; Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Ms. Argus believed in engaging each child with or without disabilities in challenging activities. She acknowledged and respected children’s perspectives and diverse learning styles, and it was evident that she allowed students to drive many of the learning activities. In fact, on my first day of observation, Ms. Argus was in the middle of a project-based learning activity. After, she told me:
We’re doing a project-based unit on rock band instruments. It came out of what the students were interested in. One student got a trumpet for Christmas, one got a violin, another one got a ukulele. They chose these instruments [she points to the Boardmaker pictures of instruments on their check-in name cards]. We’re going over to meet the music teacher on Friday and going to see Mr. (Names’) rock
CRWs abound with interactional synchronicity.Ms. Argus and Hestia naturally synchronized their body movements, eye tracking, facial expressions, and gestures in relation to the student’s movements around mutually referenced objects. This proximal shifting and moving (kinesics) around objects and each other occurred within one-to-twelve foot personal to social spaces that, according to the literature on nonverbal language, is often reserved for friends, close acquaintances, and significant others (Hans & Hans, 2015). It was evident that CRWs abounded in these relational spaces where there was interactional synchrony (Schmidt et al., 2012). This interactional synchrony created positive rapport and mutual attentiveness between the educators and children in ways that engendered a sense of rhythmic and well-coordinated activity
(Bernieri, 1994; Schmidt et al., 2012)
The educators used prosodic changes in their verbal output in a manner that seemed to intentionally alter or add salience to the utterances (Wharton, 2009c). For example, as the children lined up at the sink, the teacher said (words that are bolded were vocally emphasized; italicized words are CRWs), “Friends, first two squirts of soap, then wash, then after, use one paper towel to dry.” These instructors often prefaced their directions with the word, “friends” or infused other inclusive words such as “we”, “all”, “us”, or “our” into their comments and directions creating a language of kinship. They also rapidly employed prosodic alterations to fine-tune their messages, such as adding attentional stress on words teachers thought carried important information to improve message comprehension.
Interestingly, when the linguistic elements were altered, there was often a simultaneous shift in nonverbal language to convey different attitudes, impressions, and emotions. These adjustments of verbal and nonverbal language were often noted during group times when all students were present and Ms. Argus wished to convey information that would be understood by
all. She often used body language and gestures to add salience to the spoken spatial relational CRWs. The following scene is an example of such an activity. In this scenario, all CRWs are italicized. Words that are both italicized and bolded are CRWs the teacher emphasized vocally.
Ms. Argus sits in a chair facing the students who are all seated in various chair styles arranged in a semicircle facing her. She states in a firm and friendly teacher voice, “We are going to do two things. [She holds up 2 fingers] First, [she points to one of the two fingers], we’re going to do the one greeting we did before, which is to stand in front of your chairs [she points in general direction to
indicate in front and not behind] and we’re going to move our bodies. Then, after [she points to the second finger], we’ll do the new greeting and I’ll show you pictures of how the new greeting works [she had prepared photos of students and sequential PCS as an external mediator]. Everybody, [she makes a sweeping gesture inclusive of all children], stand in front of your chair.
and
When the children’s song came on, Ms. Argus paced her movements, gestures, and words according to the speed of the child with the most motor coordination problems. She tries to keep a pace in which all children can keep up for those with and without CCN.
Ms. Argus used many natural and basic sign gestures with her speech as a way to relay unspoken messages (Goldin-Meadow, 1999) that often contained CRWs. For example, she used gestures to indicate where a person or object should be moved or placed (“put here/there”, “around”, “over here”, “stand up/sit down” 1) or to communicate actions in relation to others
(“halt”, “stop/go”). Ms. Argus seemed especially skilled in knowing how to effectively use non- verbal language to achieve joint attention and establish common ground while engendering both a physical and conversational co-presence (Clark, 2014). Once mutual attention was established, many things could be taught including basic concepts while using CRWs. For example,
Ms. Argus stood at a distance and watched Tommy struggle to take off one winter boot. Tommy was trying to figure it out and seemed to be muttering to himself.
Just at the point of frustration noted by his facial expression, Ms. Argus stepped in with a question, “Is there something you needed?” Tommy replied “I was trying to get my boot off. My feets is wet.” Ms. Argus helped remove the boot, and asked, “Do you need new socks?” Child nods, Ms. Argus left and came back with dry socks, then taught relational concepts while holding up the different socks: “These are dry. Those are wet. I bet it feels better to take off the cold,wet socks.” Hestia followed suit with a student she was monitoring from a short distance. Together, Ms. Argus and Hestia set the stage for creating an environment conducive to relational language. Both teachers frequently acknowledged each student’s unique needs through empathic
adjustments in verbal and nonverbal language. For example,
Sam plopped into a nearby chair, and stared into space with a coat, boots, and backpack on, not smiling and not moving. Hestia waited a few more seconds then when it looked like nothing was happening, she posed a question quietly and warmly beginning with his name “(Name), what do you need to do first?” This prompted hat and mitten removal, but not coat and backpack. “What’s next?” (pause) “Do you need help?” (affirmative nod). “I’ll take your backpack, and you can do the rest.” (action performed; the child moved on silently).
The teachers naturally infused their instructions with a prosodic tone that was supportive, guiding, and warm. The overall verbal tone was often well-matched to facial expression and body language meant to facilitate students’ autonomous actions in familiar routines. It also appeared that at this point in the school year Ms. Argus and Hestia were knowledgeable of each student’s mood and attentional needs as they transitioned from home to school. The teachers naturally adjusted their communication style and language accordingly creating a discourse used among people who were familiar with each other. Both Ms. Argus and Hestia often replaced the production of noun labels (e.g., backpack) with non-specific demonstrative pronouns (e.g., it, that, those) and added nonverbal iconic and deictic gestures, head shakes/nods, and facial expressions.
memories. Moreover, the messages carried just enough salient information to be mutually understood. The most salient information often included CRWs (e.g., off/on), demonstrative pronouns “it”, and non-specific directional words that together transmitted an efficient message (e.g., “Put it on there.”). This type of non-specific language seemed to work in this classroom because none of the children had visual or hearing impairments that negatively impacted their access to spoken language or distal references.
As it turned out, nouns were often replaced by demonstrative pronouns in this shared social space once the item was mentioned and mutually understood within a specific shared time period (such as classroom arrival or departure). For example, “let me know if you need help taking those off” (referring to boots). The teachers used these moments of mutual engagement to reinforce the understanding of earlier developing relational concepts (e.g., on/off, in/out) and teach more advanced ones (e.g., first, long/short), as described further in the scene below.
Paul walks over to Ms. Argus holding two boots, but one sock is on, one is off. Paul asks, “Is my other sock in my backpack?” It seemed quite obvious that Ms. Argus would not know where his other sock resided, but she kept any hint of sarcasm out of her voice and just stated, “You need to check.”. She busies herself with another child as Paul walks to his backpack, unzips and loudly rifles around inside. Ms. Argus calls out as she hears this, but doesn’t turn to look. “Where is it?” (“it” is mutually understood even from a distance). Paul calls out, “Look! “It’s my Dad’s sock!” (smiling) and he holds up a big, long sock that he pulled outof his backpack. Ms. Argus responds, “Why do you think that’s your Dad’s?” (she pauses; there is no response from Paul, but he is looking carefully at the bigger and longer sock then down at his own sock). Ms. Argus adds, “Maybe it’s a little long?” Paul looks between the two socks again, nods and says, “yeah”. Paul turns and resumes looking for his own sock.
The students’ with CCN. Ms. Argus was particularly focused on ensuring her three students with CCN (Lucy, John, Nick)were included in all group activities with their aided AAC systems. Each of these three students demonstrated unique characteristics that influenced their use and understanding of CRWs. Ms. Argus was quite open with all instructional assistants,
(required an aided AAC system), they should not be prevented from participating in all the early learning activities of her classroom.
Lucy. Lucy rarely spoke and had difficulty engaging with other children. However, the educators reported that they felt she was beginning to “come out of her shell”. At the beginning of the school year, Lucy was given an aided AAC system with graphic symbols representing 24 core vocabulary words and a variety of activity boards that provided Lucy with activity-specific vocabulary (see Figure 4.10).
However, Lucy’s instructional assistants did not always have her aided AAC system present at learning stations. Several times I witnessed Ms. Argus walking and scanning the room verifying that all instructional assistants were using the appropriate learning tools with their students, such as pictured task sequence supports or students’ aided AAC systems. If Ms. Argus
place it between Lucy and the instructional assistant, and ask the assistant to use it with Lucy. However, it was difficult for instructors to model language on Lucy’s aided AAC system because there were only 24 words from which to choose, and not all of those words were selected from the evidence-base regarding the words young children use most frequently (Banajee et al., 2003).
When the instructional assistants attached activity specific aided AAC displays onto Lucy’s 24-word aided AAC system, not all the words were usable for the activity. For example, a number of times they were observed scanning the board with their finger, looking puzzled, then giving up on the system and resorting to asking Lucy yes/no questions that she would answer with head nods and shakes or a verbal “yeah” or “yup”, but she never said the word “no” or otherwise indicated no during my observations. Sometimes, instructional assistants even asked