Section One: Portraits

The portraits sketched below offer a contextual insight into how each participant was understood by me (as researcher) as well as their teachers (significant secondary participants in the study). This outlines the nature of the interpretative relations that were produced within the research site. This reflection consists of two sections: the first one drawing a comparison between the portrait of Stevie and Piper, whilst the second drawing a comparison between Miss Ariana and Mr Dev, the two main teachers of the learners as secondary participants of the study.

7.1.1 Comparison of Stevie and Piper’s portraits

One of the main differences between Stevie and Piper was undoubtedly the presence of voice47 in the classroom. Stevie was one of the loudest pupil in the classroom. He was also amongst those who participated in classroom interaction mostly, with his voice taking up many of the interactional acts within formal classroom interaction. It was also because of this that much of his interactional data has been produced within the formal domain. Piper, on the other hand was almost inexistent within the formal domain of classroom interaction. There was a clear absence of her voice when it came to formal interaction, and very rarely during those nine weeks of data production did I see her participate in formal classroom interaction. If she did, it was to be part of the chorus and to mime, read or answer in chorus as was the norm in the classroom, letting her voice be subsumed within that of the crowd. Unlike Stevie whose voice was loud and resonant when he took the floor when invited by his teachers to participate or when he participated without being invited, Piper never ventured an answer by herself. It was only when she was encouraged by

47 _{Voice here should not be confused with this study’s discourse analytical framework which is Bakhtin’s concept of}

heteroglossia and voice as has been defined in Section 3.4.3, Chapter Three. Voice as is used to describe Stevie’s voice refers here to the volume of his voice and his loudness, whereas the discursive analytical framework sustains the notion of dialogicality within different discourses embedded within the discourse of an individual. Voice as referring to loudness is purely a language production matter whereas voice as referring to dialogicality within discourses is very much a sociological matter. In this analysis above, it is Stevie’s loudness that is highlighted and not the dialogicality within the different discourses embedded. Voice as a discourse analytical framework is used later within Chapter Seven and Eight when analyzing how the learners’ discourses are embedded with that of numerous institutional discourses.]

178

the teachers to participate, that her voice could be heard. Moreover in those instances, she tended to be very meek and hesitant.

As was reported before, Piper was very fearful of breaking the norms of the classroom, the rules and regulations of Miss Ariana. She tried to obey to all of them as much as she could and. Since one of those rules dealt with not talking or talking very quietly in the classroom, she would often whisper or mime when interacting in the classroom. Although he respected Miss Ariana and was well-behaved in classroom, Stevie was extremely talkative. Hence, Stevie did not think twice before breaking oneof the classroom rulesand regulations whereby the students were not allowed to talk in class. Unlike Piper, Stevie was very mobile in the classroom moving to and fro from one place to another, dancing around and making a lot of gestures with his body. Piper on the other hand would sit quietly and obey to instructions. It should be noted that Stevie came from a family which had a number of challenges, notably the unemployment of his parents, the alcoholism of his dad and domestic violence as encountered by his mother at the hands of his father. In contrast, Piper came from a more stable family with fewer issues. Her siblings attended the same school as her with each other looking after the other. Her parents worked; with her mother being a secretary who was very much concerned about her daughter’s education. Although their family background did not necessarily influence their personality, however their linguistic repertoire was deeply ingrained within this contextual intricacy which differentiated the two of them. Stevie’s disrespect of the rule to not talk in class and his violent behavior as described by his teachers at times, could be attributed to the fact that he came from a home where he witnessed violence and where the norms were impinged upon. Piper on the other hand, came from a family where her mother, who was concerned about her children’s education, put a lot of emphasis on the respect of the norms, of rules and regulations. This perhaps explains why Piper went by all rules and regulations and Stevie broke them.

Although within the formal domain, Piper and Stevie were quite different as learners, within the informal domain they were both quite similar. Hence, once the bond between researcher- researched developed and I became part of their world, whether inside the classroom or outside, the similarities became evident. Consequently, both loved chatting with their classmates and playing with them although the types of play they would engage in would be different. Thus, many interactional acts of both were produced within these instances where the voice of both would be as resonant. However, where Stevie would be playing more active games such as wrestling,

179

fighting or playing football, Piper was more interested in playing with her sister at hide and seek or at games like hopscotch or the circle game. Yet, both enjoyed as much to chat with their classmates and teasing and playing around with me. When it came to my relationship with both of them, I shared very much the same type of camaraderie with both although Piper was a bit more possessive towards me since she was the first one I befriended in the field. Stevie took some time to get used to me but once he accepted me, I shared with him the same rapport that I shared with Piper.

What can thus be construed is that the two domains actually shape the behavior of the learners. It can be noted that in the formal domain, Piper and Stevie behave differently and their voices resonate differently as well impacting on the shaping of their linguistic repertoire. Alternatively, in the informal domain which is very much representative of their world which surrounds them, Stevie and Piper are similar in their ways of being as a young child.

The following section now will draw a comparison between the portraits of Miss Ariana, the GP as well as the EP teacher of the children and Mr Dev, their KM teacher.

7.1.2 Comparison of Miss Ariana and Mr Dev’s portraits.

Miss Ariana was the GP teacher of the learners who also taught them most of the EP classes whereas Mr Dev was the KM teacher of the children. Although both teachers had just started working with Stevie and Piper, they were quite different in the way they approached their learners. Miss Ariana, who had already inculcated her own brand of classroom discipline had lesser issues with handling the class than Mr Dev had. One of the biggest differences in both was the way they handled Stevie. Thus, whereas in the class of Miss Ariana, Stevie was well-behaved, in the class of Mr Dev, Stevie was very boisterous, loud and cheeky. He was punished almost every day and made to stand in front of the classroom. He was reprimanded and labelled as a bad student by Mr Dev who did not lose one opportunity to go on a tirade against his rebellious behavior. Although Mr Dev had more years of teaching experience than Miss Ariana did, he himself admitted that he could not handle the children and was looking forward to when he would retire.

However, Mr Dev and Miss Ariana used similar teaching strategies when teaching. Hence, their class started with them explaining or modelling reading with the children repeating after them in chorus. When it came to reading, the strategy used was the same. Modelled reading was followed by a number of repeated chorus readings followed by an explanation of the reading text. This was done through the use of questioning and cuing, both inviting students to participate. Students

180

responded individually or in chorus and teachers would then give feedback. Hence, both teachers used the Initiation Response Feedback (IRF)48 pattern when it came to formal instruction. However, they handled the diverse range of responses in a number of ways. Where Miss Ariana encouraged all students to participate fully and showed a better knowledge of the different needs of her learners; Mr Dev was often subdued by how much the students participated when he opened the floor for interaction and very quickly, he would reprimand the learners and put an end to their participation fearing it would lead to classroom management issues.He also did not appreciate the seating arrangements of the learners who sat in groups as per Ariana’s instructions. He felt it posed problems to the management of his classroom.

Another way in which Mr Dev differed from Miss Ariana was the fact that he was seen as an outsider within the school community. Miss Ariana was the General Purpose teacher of the students and also part of the school community since some years already. Mr Dev on the other hand had just joined St-Marie primary school and was in the school only for some two hours in the day. His presence was thus transitory. This could be noted by his absence from the school on days there were extra-curricular activities. Although the Headmistress was very cordial with him, the bond she shared with Miss Ariana differed with the bond she had with him. As he did not stay in the school during any of the break times, there was hardly any informal interaction between him and the other members of the school community. Moreover, even between him and Miss Ariana who shared the same space, there was hardly any communication except a mere acknowledgement of each other’s presence through a nod of the head. In the next section, we will look at the linguistic repertoire of the learner as it is shaped within the informal domain.