Analysing-Pedagogic-Discourse David Rose

Rose Functional Linguistics 2014, 2:11
http://www.functionallinguistics.com/content/2/1/11
RESEARCH Open Access
Analysing pedagogic discourse: an approach from

genre and register
David Rose
Correspondence: d.rose@edfac.usyd.
edu.au Abstract
Department of Linguistics,
University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, This paper presents a novel analysis of pedagogic discourse using genre and register
Australia theory. Curriculum genres are analysed as configurations of pedagogic activities,
relations, modalities, knowledge and values. Each of these register variables is
realised as discourse semantic patterns, including exchange structures, learning
cycles, multimodal sources of meanings, and experiential and interpersonal elements.
Each of these discourse patterns can be presented side-by-side, in each unit in a
pedagogic exchange, using tables or spreadsheets. The presentation enables the
analyst to identify local and global patterns in pedagogic discourse of many kinds,
particularly the intricate patterns of classroom exchanges. Analyses are illustrated
for each register variable, followed by systems of options for their realisation in
discourse. The paper concludes by illustrating a combined analysis of a stretch of
classroom discourse.
Keywords: Pedagogic discourse; Classroom discourse analysis; Genre; Register;
Exchange; Activity; Modalities; Knowledge; Value; Learning theory
Introduction
The title of this paper refers both to Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse (1990,
2000), which for Bernstein includes the whole field of pedagogic activity and its social
relations, and to the field of classroom discourse analysis, that is an ongoing concern
for educators and educational linguists. Pedagogic discourse for Bernstein included
both the discourse of skills and knowledge that he called ‘instructional’, and the cre-
ation of social order, relations and identity that he termed ‘regulative’. The analysis
here assumes that patterns of discourse in pedagogic contexts serve to create, maintain
and reproduce syndromes of social relations, identities and order over time. While the
development of these syndromes is beyond the scope of this paper, the analysis is
intended to be broad enough to enable their description. This is one of a set of re-
search problems that the analysis is designed to address. Some related issues that may
concern researchers and students include:
1. Structuring of pedagogic exchanges, including roles of teachers and learners, which

students participate in classroom exchanges and how;
2. The knowledge that is exchanged, and how it is accumulated as exchanges unfold;
3. Structuring of learning activities, including learning tasks, and how they are
initiated and followed up by teachers and peers;
© 2014 Rose; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly credited.
Rose Functional Linguistics 2014, 2:11 Page 2 of 32
4. Roles of spoken, written, visual and bodily modalities, including the sources of
meanings in the exchange, and how they are brought into the exchange.
The scope of these questions suggest a complexity to classroom teaching that is diffi-
cult to capture, either in classroom research or in teacher education. The complexity of
the teaching task is only partly addressed by analysing teacher/learner exchanges using
exchange structure theory (Berry 1981, Christie 2002, Martin 2006, Martin and Rose
2007), or by reference to ‘IRF’ cycles (Alexander 2000, Sinclair and Coulthard 1975,
Wells 1999). Studies of structures of school knowledge and patterns of knowledge ac-
cumulation have flowed from Bernstein (2000) and Halliday and Martin (1993), includ-
ing Christie and Martin (1997, 2007), Christie and Maton (2011), Martin and Maton
(2013), Maton (2014); structuring of learning activities are addressed by Christie (2002),
Martin (2006), Rose and Martin (2012), Rose (2004, 2007); and structuring of semiotic
modalities has been a major research focus, from Halliday’s (1985) description of
spoken and written language, to recent work on non-verbal modalities inspired by
Kress and van Leeuwen (1996), such as Dreyfus et al. (2010), Painter et al. (2012).
However what makes classroom teaching and learning so complex is that all these
semiotic dimensions are unfolding simultaneously, moment-by-moment, in a social
context involving 20–30 or more learners, exchanging knowledge through multiple mo-
dalities in a great variety of activities. Given the complexity of the teaching task, it is
not surprising that education outcomes are slow to improve, particularly for less advan-
taged students, and that teacher education seems to have little effect on rates of im-
provement. In fact, according to researchers such as Nuthall (2005), and teachers
themselves, most of daily teaching practice is done intuitively, using skills that have
been developed tacitly through experience, rather than researched, theorised, designed
and taught by the academy. To improve the capacity of teachers to analyse, design and
control their own classroom practice, we need an analysis capable of capturing the
complexity of their task.
Alongside the literature cited above, the analysis presented here has emerged from a
long term action research project, aimed at designing and training teachers in effective
methodologies for embedding literacy teaching in classroom practice. Known as Reading
to Learn, this project began with teachers of Indigenous Australian students with English
as another language (Rose et al. 1999, Rose 2011), but has expanded over fifteen years
across primary, secondary and tertiary education in Australia (Culican 2006, Rose and
Martin 2013, Rose et al. 2008), Africa (Childs 2008, Dell 2011, Millin 2011), Asia (Liu
2011), and Europe (Coffin et al. 2013). Many thousands of teachers have participated
in the project over this time. Major foci of the teacher education program are, on one
hand, analysing the genres in which knowledge is written and read in the school, and
on the other, designing the classroom discourse in which these genres are negotiated.
To this end, large volumes of classroom practice have been observed, recorded and
analysed, with a view to providing teachers with tools to effectively design their own
discourse. Many of the exchanges used as illustrations in this paper can be observed
directly in videoed lessons, available with transcripts and commentary at www.read-
ingtolearn.com.au, and on the website of the NSW Board of Studies, Teaching and
Educational Standards (http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/7-10-literacy-numeracy/).
The analysis has also been inspired by collaborating with other researchers, including
Harni Kartika (in prep) and Lucy McNaught (in prep). While the illustrations are focused
on classroom discourse in schools, it is proposed that the analysis is potentially useful for
any pedagogic activity. To this end, an instance of parent–child pedagogic activity is also
analysed to illustrate its scope.
A model for analysis

A toolbox for comprehensively describing classroom discourse has been developing
over recent decades, using genre and register theory (Christie 2002, Martin 1992,
Martin and Rose 2007, 2008). Halliday (1978) models the social contexts of language in
three dimensions as field (what is going on), tenor (who is involved) and mode (the role
of language). Martin (1992) groups these social variables as register, and proposes a
more abstract contextual stratum of genre, that weaves together register variables to
achieve participants’ goals. Figure 1 represents these relations as sets of nested circles,
in which tenor, field and mode are distinguished at the level of register, and realised
intrinsically in the interpersonal, ideational and textual functions of language, but
woven together at the level of genre.
Martin further models field as sequences of activities, involving taxonomies of entities
(people, things); tenor as relative status and contact of participants; and mode as discourse
that accompanies activity or constitutes a field, as either dialogue or spoken or written
monologue. If we interpret genres as recurrent configurations of register variables,
then two general types of pedagogic genres may be distinguished. We can use the term
knowledge genres for field constituting texts, through which institutional knowledge
is acquired (such as the stories, chronicles, explanations, procedures, reports, argu-
ments and text responses described by Martin and Rose 2008). And we will use the
term curriculum genres (following Christie 2002) for the dialogic discourse of the
home, school, further education, recreation and workplaces, through which knowledge
is negotiated. The focus of this paper is on the structuring of curriculum genres.
Figure 1 Genre, register and language.

A defining feature of curriculum genres is their two fields, on one hand the knowledge
to be acquired by learners, and on the other the pedagogic activity through which it
is acquired. Types of knowledge may range from domestic, recreational and manual
trades that can be demonstrated and acquired ostensively, Bernstein’s ‘horizontal
discourses’ (2000), to theoretically organised bodies of knowledge of professional
occupations, Bernstein’s ‘vertical discourses’, that are typically acquired through
formal education (cf Martin’s 1992 classification of fields acquired through ‘doing’
and ‘studying’). Knowledge is also always associated with social values, that learners
acquire together with knowledge. Values enact social hierachies of status, authority,
prominence. Pedagogic activity unfolds as sequences of learning activities, through
which knowledge and values may be accumulated.
Learning activities are enacted dialogically as exchanges between teachers and
learners. We can refer to the social relations enacted between teachers and learners as
pedagogic relations (after Bernstein 1990, 2000). Pedagogic relations include hierarchies
of authority between teachers and learners, inclusion and exclusion in classroom learning,
success and failure in evaluations, hierarchies that may be more or less explicit. Pedagogic
relations are not only enacted orally between teachers and learners, but include relations
between producers of texts and learners, the texts that learners produce for evaluation,
and teachers’ spoken and written evaluations of learners’ texts, together with relations
between learners.
Curriculum genres typically involve multiple modalities: teacher/learner exchanges are
often negotiated orally, but may also be written or on-line, and the sources of knowledge
exchanged may lie in the activities of participants, or their sensory environment, in written
texts, visual images, film or performance. We can refer to these as pedagogic modalities.
Figure 2 represents pedagogic activities, relations and modalities as register variables, as in
Figure 1, but the knowledge and values exchanged as another layer.
Figure 2 Dimensions of a curriculum genre.

x
Martin 1999 and Christie 2002 propose a metaphor of projection to represent the re-
lations between the two fields of pedagogic activity and knowledge (as the act of saying
projects locutions). The model here further suggests that knowledge and values are
shaped by the entire configuration of pedagogic activities, relations and modalities, in
order to account for variations in learners’ acquisition of knowledge and values, depending
on their participation and status in pedagogic exchanges, their control of pedagogic
modalities (particuarly writing), and the varying benefits they thus obtain from pedagogic
activities. Conversely, the model facilitates design of each register variable to maximise
benefits for all students. To this end, it provides a framework for systematically analysing
any curriculum genre, from classroom activities to parent–child exchanges.
In classroom discourse, each register variable is realised in particular discourse se-
mantic structures that are mapped together in each step of the unfolding genre.
Pedagogic relations are enacted as teacher/learner roles in exchanges, in which one
or more learners participate; pedagogic activity is realised as phases in learning activ-
ities; pedagogic modalities include sources of meanings and the processes that bring
them into the discourse; knowledge and values exchanged are realised as experiential
and interpersonal elements, and relations between elements as an activity unfolds.
Relations between these pedagogic register variables and discourse semantic patterns
are schematised in Table 1.
Analysing curriculum genres

The starting point for analysis is with the global structuring of curriculum genres. As
with genres in general, defined broadly as ‘staged, goal-oriented social processes’, the
first step is to identify their stages. We can refer to these as lesson stages, so that each
curriculum genre is realised by one or more lesson stages. For example, the curriculum
genre designed by Joan Rothery and colleagues for teaching writing is widely known as
the ‘teaching/learning cycle’ or TLC. Its staging has been described as Deconstruction,
followed by Joint Construction, followed by Independent Construction, schematised in
Figure 3 (from Rothery 1994).
However, the writing TLC is actually a macro-genre (Martin 1996, Martin and Rose
2008), in which Deconstruction, Joint Construction, and Independent Construction are
distinct genres, that may occur in separate lessons, and consist of their own staging
(Martin and Dreyfus to appear). Curriculum macro-genres like the writing TLC unfold
through a sequence of lessons, which we can refer to as a lesson sequence.
Each individual curriculum genre unfolds through a sequence of lesson stages. For
example, the Joint Construction genre may include lesson stages such as Note Making
(in which content is recorded as notes on the board), Text Negotiation (in which the
teacher guides the class to construct the text, scribed on the board), and Text Review
(in which the text’s field, generic structuring, and language features are reviewed, before
students attempt individual constructions). Figure 4 illustrates a Text Review stage. The
class has completed the Text Negotiation stage of writing a science explanation. The
Table 1 Register variables and discourse semantic patterns

Register Pedagogic relations Pedagogic Pedagogic Knowledge & values
activity modalities
Discourse Roles & participation in Phases in learning Sources of Experiential & interpersonal
semantics teacher/learner exchanges activities meanings elements & relations
Figure 3 TLC curriculum genre.
teacher is reviewing the text structure by marking and naming each component of the
explanation they have written. Her oral commentary is transcribed on the image.
Pedagogic relations
In classroom discourse, pedagogic relations are enacted as teacher/learner exchanges.
There are two general types of exchanges, of knowledge or action. In an action ex-
change, one person performs an action, which may have been demanded by another.
The person performing the action is known as the primary actor or A1; the person
demanding the action is a secondary actor or A2 (after Martin 1992, Martin and Rose
2007, following Berry 1981). Action exchanges are consummated by the A1 performance.
Figure 4 Text review stage in joint construction.

A minimal action exchange consists of just an A1 action, without an A2 demand, so A1 is

the core role in an action exchange. In Table 2 a teacher asks a student to scribe on the
board, and tells him what to write (A2). The student does what he is asked (A1).
Here the A2 role is realised by a question ‘do you want to?’ and a command ‘just
write’. An A2 role may be realised by commands, questions and/or statements. Its
demanding function in the exchange is given by the curriculum genre, and the un-
equal status of teacher and student. In Table 2, this inequality is apparently reduced
by phrasing the demand as the student’s choice ‘do you want to?’, but the relation
between demand and compliance is expected by the genre and the pedagogic relation.
The major functions of action exchanges in classroom discourse are to manage the
learning activity or students’ behaviour.
From a grammatical perspective, the A2 demand in Table 2 includes three moves,
realised as three clauses, // do you want to come up on the smartboard // and write the
heading for us in the middle // just write 'The Water Cycle'//. From this perspective, it
may be analysed as a move complex (Martin 1992, Martin and Rose 2007). But from
the perspective of speakers' roles in the pedagogic exchange, it is one functional unit,
so we will refer to such A/K units as exchange roles. An exchange is realised by a
sequence of one or more roles, each of which is realised by one or more moves.
In a knowledge exchange, the person giving information is the primary knower or K1. A
person demanding or receiving information is a secondary knower or K2. Typically one
asks a question to obtain information, so the questioner is K2, and the answerer K1. K1 is
the core role in a knowledge exchange. A minimal knowledge exchange consists of just a
K1 role, without a K2 demand.
Pedagogic exchanges are unusual, in that the teacher is usually the one with the
knowledge for students to acquire. Teachers ask questions for students to display their
knowledge, but their responses are almost always evaluated. Bernstein tells us that “the
key to pedagogic practice is continuous evaluation… evaluation condenses the meaning
of the whole [pedagogic] device” (2000:36). Evaluation of learners’ knowledge is the
core K1 role in a teacher/learner exchange, as it tells the learner whether acquisition
has been successful. The teacher has the authority to evaluate knowledge, so the
teacher is usually takes the primary knower role, or K1. Learners’ knowledge is given
value by the teacher’s evaluation, so learners are usually in secondary knower roles, or
K2. The teacher’s K1 evaluation is delayed until after the learner’s response. So teachers’
questions are referred to as delayed K1, or dK1 moves, as in Table 3.
As with action exchanges, the sequence of dK1 question, K2 response and K1
evaluation is expected by the curriculum genre and asymmetric pedagogic relation;
students are expected to display their knowledge in response to teachers’ dK1 demands
and to be evaluated. The display enables teachers to judge the effectiveness of the learning
activity; the evaluation enables learners to gauge their success. The structure of the
Table 2 Exchange 1: Pedagogic action exchange

Spkr Exchange Roles
T So Mert, do you want to come up on the smartboard A2
and write the heading for us in the middle?
Just write 'The Water Cycle'.
S [scribes 'The Water Cycle’ on the smartboard] A1
Table 3 Exchange 2: Pedagogic knowledge exchange

Speaker Exchange Roles
T So what was this paragraph called? dK1
Ss Phenomenon K2
T Yep K1
pedagogic relation is tacitly recognised by all teachers and students. The most common
options for pedagogic exchange roles are set out in Figure 5.
In the options for knowledge exchanges, the first option (K1) is performed by the
teacher, simply by giving information. The second option (dK1^K2^K1) is illustrated in
Table 3 above, in which the teacher’s K1 evaluation is anticipated but delayed by a
question (dK1) and learner response (K2). The final option (K2^K1) is less common, in
which a student may ask a question of the teacher, or the teacher may ask a student for
information that she does not already know.
In the options for action exchanges, the first option (A1) is performed by the teacher,
such as handing out equipment or reading aloud. In the second option (dA1Â2Â1),
a student may ask permission for an action (dA1), the teacher gives permission (A2), and
the student performs the action (A1). The third option (A2Â1) is illustrated in Table 2
above, in which the teacher directs students’ activity or behaviour.
In addition to these most frequent types of exchange moves, teachers and students
may also follow up an A1 move with thanks, or follow up a K1 move with a comment.
These can be labelled as followups (A1f/A2f; K1f/K2f ). Moves may also be tracked to
clarify understanding, and challenged. These can be labelled as tracking (tr), response
to tracking (rtr), challenge (ch) and response to challenge (rch). These options are
examined in more detail in Martin and Rose (2007), Rose and Martin (2012). For
examples of followup and tracking moves, see Table 4 and Table 5 below.
Participation
To this point, the analysis can be applied to any pedagogic exchange, from parent–child
interactions to classroom teaching, whether there is one or more than one learner.
However, there are wide disparities in students’ degree of inclusion in classroom
conversations. By far the most common way of initiating a classroom exchange is when
the teacher asks a question of the class. Teachers typically report that a minority of
Figure 5 Basic options for pedagogic exchange role.

Table 4 Exchange 3: Learning by doing

Roles Cycle phases Sources
1 St What’s this? K2 Identify point, refer to place
T No that’s no good. K1 Reject refer to place
2 T Throw more soil over here. A2 Focus point, refer to place
St This? tr Identify point, refer to place
T Yes exactly, that hole there. rtr Affirm refer to place
3 St [starts to dig] A1 (Identify)
T No, that’s no good. A2f Reject refer to place
4 T Look. A2 Prepare point
This is good. K1 refer to place
Look. A2 point
It’s over yonder. K1 refer to place
5 T Dig away on the other side. A2 Focus refer to place
St This? tr Identify point, refer to place
T Yes, that’s it! rtr Affirm refer to place
6 Try that there. A2 Focus refer to place
St [starts to dig] A1 (Identify)
T That’s it! K1f Affirm refer to place
St Aha! K2f Concur
students consistently respond to their questions, and these are usually the more
successful students (Rose 2011, Rose and Martin 2012, 2013). Nuthall (2005:919–20)
comments that “The teacher is largely cut off from information about what individual
students are learning… Teachers depend on the responses of a small number of students
as indicators and remain ignorant of what most of the class knows and understands”.
Relations between classroom participation and educational success are schematised in
Figure 6.
To analyse inclusion, we need to identify which students are addressed in the ex-
change, which students speak, and how they are evaluated. This addresses a major gap
in much classroom discourse analysis, which typically uses transcripts of classroom
talk, although only a minority of students’ voices are recorded in a transcript. We will
use the term participation to cover which students are addressed and speak in
exchanges.
Most commonly, teachers’ questions address the whole class, one student responds
(perhaps raising a hand to speak), and the teacher evaluates that student. Table 6 in-
cludes two exchanges; in each, the teacher asks a dK1 question, one student responds
(K2), and the teacher affirms that student’s response (K1).
Although only one student responds and is affirmed, the teacher’s expectation is that
the rest of the class will learn from the exchange. To this end, the teacher adjusts S6’s
response ‘It’s part of Step 1’ (labelled as tracking) before affirming him, so the class gets
more precise information. Conversely, S10’s response is precisely what she wants the
class to know, so she repeats it with strong affirmation.
In Table 7, the teacher first prepares for the question, with information addressed to
the whole class (K1). She then asks the class for a technical term (which they have
Table 5 Exchange 4: Detailed Reading analysis
Exchange Roles Part. Phases Sources Experiential Interpersonal Functions
1 T So, let's now look at it in detail, and prepare to be writing it ourselves. A2 class Prepare reading refer reading let's, ourselves specify
So we're going to go through sentence-by-sentence now. K1 class activity text sentence-by-sentence, So we're going to activity
key words, structure,
So if you've got your highlighters there,
Phenomenon
we're going to identify the key words in the text.
Coming back up, we've looked at the big structure of the text.
Coming back up to the Phenomenon.
2 T The first sentences are talking about what's going to be explained. K1 class Prepare sentence refer text sentences, Water Cycle, Alright, so I'll preview
first
They’re talking about why it's called a Water Cycle overall.
Alright, so I'll read you the sentences. A1 class refer text sentences sentences
‘Water is found in many different forms on Earth and is constantly moving read text
from one place to another. As it moves, it changes state in cycles, from
liquid water to water vapour, sometimes to ice, and back to liquid again.’
3 T So Zac, can you tell me, what is this all about? dK1 S1 Focus Item, refer text what about, beginning So Zac, can you detailed
position
What's the beginning there?
S 'Water' K2 S1 Identify item read text Water reading
T Water. Fantastic, that's right. K1 S1 Affirm praise Water Fantastic, right. first
Can we all highlight the word water, please, the very first word in our text. A2 class Direct marking refer text water, word Can we all sentence
T OK, it goes on to say that water is found in many different forms. K1 class Prepare position refer text water, forms
But what is the water doing? Have a look through our sentence. dK1, class Focus item refer text water doing But what
A2
Rodney, what is the water doing? dK1 S2
S It's ‘constantly moving' K2 S2 Identify item read text moving constantly
T Excellent K1 S2 Affirm praise Excellent
Page 10 of 32
Table 5 Exchange 4: Detailed Reading analysis (Continued)
T Can you give me a little bit more information about that? dK1 S2 Focus structure refer text information Can you, little bit
more
S ‘from one place to another' K2 S2 Identify structure read text one place…
T OK K1 S2 Affirm approve OK,
So let's highlight that whole section that it's constantly moving from one A2 class Direct marking refer text constantly moving… so let's
place to another.
4 T OK, the next sentence gives us something else that the water is doing. K1 class Prepare sentence refer text next sentence water OK, Now, I've detailed
Now, I've read it to you before. doing reading
As it moves it… Alex? As it moves it… dK1 S3 Focus item read text moves second
S 'changes' K2 S3 Identify item read text changes sentence
T Changes. K1 S3 Affirm repeat changes
T Changes what? dK1 S3 Focus item refer text changes
S 'changes state' K2 S3 Identify item read text changes state
T State. K1 S3 Affirm repeat state
Remember, state's the scientific word we use for whether it's a solid, K1 class Elaborate technical remind prior scientific word, solid, Remember,
a liquid or a gas, or what form it's in. field lesson liquid, gas, form
So can we highlight 'change of state'. A2 class Direct marking read text change of state, So can we
OK, can we highlight the 'in cycles' as well. A2 class Direct marking read text changes state in cycles OK, can we, So
we've actually
So we've actually got those four words highlighted together, 'changes K1 class
state in cycles'.
T So what were those four states again? dK1 class Focus field remind prior move four states
The end of the sentence names them. K1 class Prepare position refer text end sentence
So, Amon, from…? dK1 S4 Focus position read text
S 'from liquid water' K2 S4 Identify item read text liquid water
T Liquid. K1 S4 Affirm repeat
Page 11 of 32
T To…? dK1 S4 Focus structure read text
S 'water' K2 S4 Identify item read text water
Water vapour. OK. K1 S4 Affirm repeat Water vapour. OK.
T That's the key that it's a gas, our word 'vapour'. K1 class Elaborate field present knowledge gas, vapour, That's the key
So, if we can highlight 'liquid water' and 'water vapour'. A2 class Direct marking read text Liquid, vapour So, if we can
T So there are two sides to the Water Cycle. Water might have travelled a long K1 class Elaborate technical present knowledge Water Cycle. Oceans… might have,
way from the oceans to get to the mountains, or a long way through a field river system, state, maybe, all the
long river system. But it's also changing state. It changes from liquid to gas to liquid, gas, solid way
liquid, maybe to solid and then back again, all the way through the cycle.
T What happens to it in the atmosphere? It becomes…? dK1 S6 Focus item refer text atmosphere
S ‘cold' K2 S6 Identify item read text cold
T Cold. Excellent. K1 S6 Affirm praise cold Excellent.
T So, when it becomes cold, what are we forming? dK1 S6 Focus item refer text cold, forming So, when, what
S ‘forms clouds’ K2 S6 Identify item read text forms clouds
T Thank you, Ng, excellent. K1 S6 Affirm praise excellent.
Just make sure we've highlighted the words 'cold' and clouds'. A2 class Direct marking read text cold, clouds Just make sure
we’ve
5 T Why do you think, in the diagram, that we have a change in the colour dK1 class Focus technical refer image Why do you think, elaborate
of the clouds? What might that be related to? What's going on? field elicit knowledge might technical
Alex? dK1 S3 Focus field elicit knowledge going on field
S Sometimes it makes it rain K2 S3 Propose structure infer knowledge rain
T Yeah, K1 S3 Affirm approve Yeah
T So what must be happening in the clouds? dK1 class Focus field elicit knowledge clouds what must be
S It gets darker K2 S7 Propose structure infer knowledge darker
T It gets darker, K1 S7 Affirm repeat darker
and it gets heavier. K1 class Elaborate field present knowledge heavier
Page 12 of 32
What's in this cloud? Water in what state? dK1 class Focus field elicit knowledge Water, state
S as ice K2 S8 Propose item infer knowledge ice
T It could be icy, tr S8 Affirm repeat icy could be
falling on the mountains as sleet, or even as snow. K1 class Elaborate field present knowledge sleet, snow.
T But there's more liquid water than solid water. K1 class Prepare field present knowledge liquid water, solid water. But more than
[dK1]
[implicit: So what must be happening in the clouds?]
S condensation K2 S9 Propose item recall prior condensation
lesson
There's more condensation that's happened. That's right. tr, K1 S9 Affirm repeat condensation That's right.
T So when you get the lighter, fluffier clouds they might still be just in the K1 class Elaborate technical present knowledge lighter, fluffier clouds, might still be just
process of the water coming from the vapour back to the liquid. field water, vapour, liquid,
But you know it's going to be a real downpour when the skies get dark. K1 class Elaborate everyday present knowledge downpour, skies, dark But you know
field
Page 13 of 32
Figure 6 Classroom participation and educational success.
discussed in an earlier lesson stage), and further asks them to respond together (dK1),
which they do (K2). The evaluation is then addressed to the whole class (K1).
By asking ‘Can we say that together again?’ the teacher is explicitly asking the whole
class to respond. Note that she is not demanding action, but knowledge, as she has not
told them what to say. There is a single dK1 role here, with two demands, one specifying
the item of knowledge, and the other specifying who should respond.
Alternatively, the question can address a particular student, whose response is then
evaluated, as in Table 8, but this is much less common than asking the whole class.
Although the teacher’s dK1 role is phrased as a command ‘continue with your
suggestion’ , it is again a demand for knowledge, not action. Amon proposes a wording to
add to the joint text, which the teacher approves and repeats. Again the repetition is for
the benefit of the whole class, and the student who is scribing the text on the class board.
Often, students’ responses are not what the teacher wants. Rejecting a response typically
requires another cycle, as in Table 9.
In this example, student S7 proposes a whole clause ‘so this is called transpiration’.
But the conjunction is not appropriate, and the teacher is forced to reject his response.
Table 6 Exchange 5: Individual student response and evaluation

Spkr Exchange Roles Participation
T What's this third dot point? dK1 class
Which section of our writing did we label it as?
S6 Step 1 K2 S6
T It's part of Step 1 tr class
Yeh K1 S6
T So how am I going to show that in our rewrite? dK1 class
S10 Start a new paragraph K2 S10
T Start a new paragraph K1 S10
Fantastic
Table 7 Exchange 6: Whole class participation

T So the main idea we've got to convey in this paragraph is that it's about evaporates K1 class
Or the word for the process is…? dK1 class
Can we say that together again?
Ss Evaporation K2 Ss
T Excellent K1 class
Student S6 then proposes an alternative that is appropriate, which the teacher affirms,
by repeating, approving and praising him. In this very common pattern, one student is
rejected and another affirmed.
In ordinary classroom discourse, students’ responses may be rejected until the desired
response is proposed and affirmed. This is one factor in the inequality of participation
in classroom exchanges, as the pattern starts from the first days of school, and con-
tinues year after year. Inequality of participation is a critical factor in the construction
of the hierarchy of inclusion and exclusion in classroom learning. For this reason it is
crucial to include this feature in classroom discourse analysis. It is also essential in
analysing peer discussions in group work. To my knowledge it has rarely been ad-
equately considered in classroom research, partly because non-participating students
are not apparent in transcripts of classroom discourse.
Basic participation options are given in Figure 7. Students either address or speak,
and the participant may be the whole class, a group of students, or an individual, i.e. by
addressing the class the teacher treats the whole class as an interactant in the exchange.
Analysing participation shows the proportion of students who are actively included in
the classroom conversation. Analysing evaluation further shows the proportion of
included students who are affirmed.
Pedagogic activity
Knowledge of all kinds is acquired through pedagogic activity. At the core of pedagogic
activities are learning tasks. Only the learner can do the task; a teacher cannot do it for
them. However, a learning task is usually specified by a teacher (orally or in writing).
For example, the teacher may give an instruction or ask a question, which learners
respond to. We can refer to the phase that specifies the task as the Focus. Thirdly, a
learning task is usually evaluated by a teacher, including various degrees of affirmation
or rejection, for example, from a high distinction to a fail. So the nucleus of a learning
activity includes the elements Focus, Task and Evaluate, as in Figure 8.
In addition, the learning task may be prepared by a teacher, for example, by demon-
strating how to do the task, or contextualising it in the learners’ experience. The task
may also be elaborated after it has been successfully completed. The elaboration may
Table 8 Exchange 7: Teacher addresses individual student

T Amon, continue with your suggestion. dK1 S5
S5 Trees and other plants K2 S5
T Good K1 S5
Trees and other plants
Table 9 Exchange 8: Rejected response triggers a further cycle

T We're going to keep the technical term dK1 class
S7 So this is called transpiration K2 S7
T It's not really a 'so' link K1 S7
S6 Which is called K2 S6
T Which is called K1 S6
You're right jeremy
Good one
be a further step in the activity, or it may give learners a more technical or abstract un-
derstanding of the task they have done, or a commonsense interpretation. Optional
phases of a learning activity thus include Prepare and Elaborate phases, as in Figure 9.
This is an orbital type of structure (Martin 1996), in which elements are more or less
central and more or less optional. The learner’s Task is the core of the activity, Focus
and Evaluate phases are nuclear, and usually present, while Prepare and Elaborate
phases are marginal, and more optional. Sequencing is not fixed in orbital structures.
The typical sequence is Prepare^Focus^TaskÊvaluateÊlaborate, but teachers may pre-
pare after the Focus, or elaborate before the evaluation. Nevertheless, Prepare and
Focus phases necessarily precede the Task, while Evaluate and Elaborate phases must
follow it.
The orbital structure of pedagogic activity is a general structuring potential. But
pedagogic activity is also organised hierarchically, in sequences of larger units com-
posed of smaller units. As genres are realised by texts, a curriculum genre is realised by
a lesson. Each lesson is composed of one or more lesson stages. Each lesson stage is
composed of one or more learning activities. As our analysis unfolds below, we will
see that each lesson activity is composed of one or more learning cycles. Each of these
ranks is realised by the orbital structure of pedagogic activity, with a Task at its core.
The Task of a lesson stage is realised by one or more learning activities; the Task of a
learning activity is realised by one or more learning cycles. This organisation is pre-
sented as a rank hierarchy in Figure 10. Note that higher rank Prepare and Elaborate
phases may also be realised by lower rank activities.
Pedagogic activity (field) is negotiated by pedagogic relations (tenor). Learning cycles
are enacted as teacher/learner exchanges (as a message is negotiated as a statement or
Figure 7 Basic participation options.

Figure 8 Nucleus of pedagogic activity.
question). At its simplest, the Focus is enacted as a teacher’s dK1 role, followed by a
learner’s K2 response, followed by the teacher’s K1 evaluation. The learner’s Task is to
respond to the teacher’s Focus. The Focus specifies the type of response expected.
Students’ tasks in classroom exchanges are (most generally) to either Propose an idea
from their knowledge or Identify an element in a text. Table 10 is from the first learning
cycle in the Text Negotiation stage of a Joint Construction. Cycle phases are shown to
the right.
The pedagogic function of this Focus is to specify the next item in a sentence that
the class is writing together. This Focus provides sufficient guidance for a student to
propose the item ‘moving’, which the teacher affirms by repeating and approving. The
sequence is negotiated as a dK1^K2^K1 exchange.
Prepare phases provide information that guides learners towards a response. Table 11
adds a Prepare phase which contextualises the activity in students’ prior knowledge,
and the procedure they will follow in writing.
The Prepare phase here includes three messages: the first is a proposition ‘we’re going
to’ (K1), the second is a proposal ‘we need to’ (A2), and the third is another proposition
‘we’re going to’ (K1). Each functions as part of the Prepare phase: the first gives general
information ‘follow the same pattern’; the second specifies the steps they will follow;
the third specifies the first item in the sentence.
Elaborate phases may build on students’ responses with more detailed, technical or
abstract knowledge, or they may relate an unfamiliar field to students’ commonsense
knowledge. Teachers typically use students’ responses as semantic platforms to provide
an element of new knowledge in Elaborate phases (widely discussed as ‘feedback’
moves, e.g. Gibbons 2009, Wells 1999). Knowledge may thus accumulate through elab-
orations over a series of learning cycles. In Table 12, the class continues constructing
the sentence from notes on the board. A student proposes the elements changing and
state, which the teacher affirms and then elaborates with more technical detail, the
three states of matter solid, liquid, gas.
Figure 9 Optional phases of pedagogic activity.

Figure 10 Rank hierarchy of learning activities.
Prepare and Elaborate phases may be single K1 units, or they may involve other
exchanges with students. For example, the teacher could have asked students to provide
the elaboration as in Table 13.
Analysing the movement from Prepare to Focus to Task to Elaborate phases can
show how knowledge is built up through an exchange, and related to learners’ experi-
ence. It can also help show how students are included or excluded from the activity. In
an inclusive practice, Prepare and Focus phases may be framed within students’ existing
knowledge (closer to commonsense). This may enable more students to do the task
successfully, whether proposing or identifying a meaning. Elaborate phases may then be
more detailed, technical or abstract (more uncommonsense) (Liu 2011). Such a sequence
enables accumulation of curriculum knowledge. A less inclusive but more common prac-
tice lacks a Prepare phase, and the Focus is an interpretive question, for which students
must recognise an appropriate response, from their prior knowledge and values
(Alexander 2000, Nuthall 2005, Rose 2004, 2011). Elaborations may then commit more
meaning, enabling knowledge accumulation only for those students who understood
the question and response (Rose 2004, Rose and Martin 2012). Or the teacher may at-
tempt to repair lack of understanding by elaborating with commonsense (Martin and
Maton 2013). Patterns like these are referred to as semantic waves by Maton (2014).
Figure 9 sets out the most common options for cycle phases. The learners’ task is
central, and may involve identifying an element in a text (Identify), or proposing an
element from their knowledge (Propose). The task may be prepared or not (Prepare),
and is specified by focusing on either a text or the learners’ knowledge (Focus). Following
the task, it is evaluated by either affirming or rejecting (Affirm/Reject), and may be
Table 10 Exchange 9: Nucleus of a learning cycle

Spkr Exchange Roles Participation Cycle phases
T What is the water doing? dK1 class Focus
S Moving K2 S1 Propose
T It's moving K1 S1 Affirm
OK, good
Table 11 Exchange 10: Prepare phase in a learning cycle

Spkr Exchange Roles Participation Phases
T So we're going to follow the same pattern in our writing K1 class Prepare
as the text that we've just read.
We need to have the same introduction, A2
identify what it is we're going to talk about,
move through the steps,
and finish it with a conclusion.
We're going to start with ‘water’. K1
What is the water doing? dK1 class Focus
S1 moving K2 S1 Propose
T It's moving K1 S1 Affirm
OK, good
elaborated or not (Elaborate). In addition, the teacher may direct learners’ activity or be-
haviour (Direct) (Figure 11).
Less common cycle phases include scribing on the board and dictating to the scribe
(Scribe/Dictate), and students may concur or disagree with the teacher or other
students (Concur/Differ). These are not of the same status as teachers’ evaluations, and
do not consummate classroom learning cycles. On the other hand, in small group
exchanges, students may assume the teacher’s role and evaluate other students, by
affirming or rejecting.
Specifying cycle phases

Relations between cycle phases may be analysed in more detail, to show the nature of
students’ tasks, and how they are prepared, specified, evaluated and elaborated. In
Table 14, the teacher first prepares the activity, with the structure of the genre to be
written, and the then specifies the first lexical item in the sentence water. The Focus
then specifies the item to propose, what water is doing, i.e. a process. In response, a
student proposes an associated lexical item moving. The evaluation includes three types
of affirmation: repeating the student’s response, it’s moving, and approving it twice,
OK, good.
Table 12 Exchange 11: Elaborating phases

Spkr Exchange Roles Participation Phases
T So it's moving K1 class Prepare
What else is it doing? dK1 class Focus
S1 changing K2 S1 Propose
T changing K1 S1 Affirm
good
T What's it changing? dK1 class Focus
S2 state K2 S2 Propose
T state K1 S2 Affirm
from solid, liquid, gas K1 class Elaborate
OK K1 S2 Affirm
Table 13 Exchange 12: Elaborating phase as exchange

T What's it changing? dK1 class Focus
S2 state K2 S2 Propose
T state K1 S2 Affirm
OK
T What are the three states of matter? dK1 class Focus
S3 solid, liquid, gas, K2 S3 Propose
T That’s right. K1 S3 Affirm
Affirmation or rejection of a response indicates the effectiveness of Prepare and

Focus phases. Here the Prepare phase first orients students to the procedure they will
follow for writing, then the starting point for writing. The Focus then specifies the next
item to propose. Together these criteria guide the student to propose the item ‘moving’.
However, it is far more common for learning cycles to be unprepared; teachers typic-
ally expect a response to their Focus questions without preparing, and only prepare
when they do not get a desired response. Furthemore, Focus questions often provide
little or no clue to the desired response, but require students to interpret one from
their knowledge. This is another factor in unequal participation, as only a few students
typically have the confidence to risk displaying their knowledge and capacities for inter-
preting, where affirmation is uncertain.
Preparations and elaborations are diverse, and contingent on variations in activities
and knowledge, so I will not attempt to further specify them here. But options for Task
and Focus phases can be specified with more delicacy. The learners’ Task may be to
identify an element in a text or propose an element from knowledge, and the element
proposed or identified may be a single item or a grammatical structure, such as a
phrase, clause or clause complex. Working back from the learner’s response, we can
Figure 11 Basic options for cycle phases.

Table 14 Exchange 13: Specifying cycle phases

Spkr Exchange Roles Participation Phases Specify phase function
T So we're going to follow the same pattern K1 class Prepare writing activity
in our writing as the text that we've just read.
genre structure
We need to have the same introduction,
We're going to start with ‘water’. item
What is the water doing? dK1 class Focus item
S1 moving K2 S1 Propose item
T It's moving K1 S1 Affirm repeat
OK, good approve
ask whether the teacher’s Focus specifies a text or student knowledge as the source of
the response, whether it provides guidance to the desired response or not, and whether
it expects a single item, or a whole structure in response. These options are shown in
Figure 12.
Evaluations either affirm or reject students’ responses, but as appraisals, they may
grade the force of affirmation or rejection from weak to strong. Figure 13 presents
some common options for graduation of evaluations. Affirmations may simply repeat
the response, they may approve it with Yep, OK, good, or they may praise the student.
Repetitions, as we have seen (Table 6, Table 14), re-present the response as knowledge
for the whole class to acquire.
Perhaps the weakest form of rejection is to simply ignore a response, which is very
common. Any student proposal that is not explicitly evaluated has been ignored.
Teachers often try to lessen the impact of rejection by qualifying the response, but if a
Figure 12 Further options for focus and task phases.

Figure 13 Further options for Evaluate phases.
response is not affirmed, students always know it has been rejected. Sometimes
responses are simply negated, and the strongest rejection is to admonish a student.
Pedagogic modalities
Pedagogic modalities include spoken, written, visual, gestural and manual modes of
communication. Pedagogic modalities phase together pedagogic relations, activities and
knowledge, as classroom discourse. All these modalities may be in play simultaneously.
They are deployed in various ways to bring meanings into the discourse, and to
manipulate meanings. For example, in Figure 14, the teacher gestures as she orally
explains relations between a visual diagram and written captions on the board. A student
is also manually highlighting captions in his own copy of the diagram.
Figure 14 Pedagogic modalities: spoken, written, visual, gestural, manual.

Sources of meanings in the discourse thus include shared texts and images, such as
written texts, notes and images on the board, and students’ individual copies of texts
and images. These meanings may be brought into the discourse by reading, pointing or re-
ferring to them, as they are discussed. On the other hand, spoken sources of meanings are
teachers’ or students’ knowledge. Teachers orally prepare and elaborate meanings from
their own knowledge, and their Focus questions typically ask students to propose answers
from their knowledge. Knowledge may be shared through prior learning cycles or prior
lessons, or it may be from teachers’ or students’ individual experience beyond the lesson
sequence. These meanings may be brought into the discourse by teachers presenting their
own knowledge or eliciting students’. They may remind students of shared knowledge, or
ask for their individual prior knowledge. Students may recall shared knowledge, or infer
the desired answer. We will refer to the means by which meanings are brought into the
discourse as sourcing.
In Table 15, the teacher prepares by reminding students of elements of the text they
have just read. She then prepares by pointing to notes previously written on the board,
specifically the word water. Her Focus then refers to the next item in the notes, with a
semantic cue, the general class of item doing. This provides sufficient guidance for one
student to propose the item moving, which he has read in the notes on the board.
Figure 15 sets out basic options for sources of meanings. The source may be spoken
by teachers and students (labelled ‘discussion’) or recorded. Recorded texts may be ver-
bal (written or aural) or visual (still or moving). Recorded texts may be shared, such as
scribed or projected on the class board, or individual copies. Meanings may be brought
into the discourse by reading, pointing or refering to a recorded text. Visual and aural
texts may be shared by projecting or copying, but written texts may be shared by reading
aloud. Although visual and aural texts may be pointed to or verbally referred to, only
written language can be read. In other words, if a text is read, it must be written. This
is indicated in the network as superscript ‘I’ (if read) and ‘T’ (then written). Written
texts and still images may also be marked and annotated, and these may become
sources for the discussion.
Spoken sources in the classroom discussion are teachers’ and students’ knowledge,
that may be shared through prior learning cycles or prior lessons, or may be their individ-
ual knowledge. Teachers may present their own knowledge, or elicit students’ knowledge.
Table 15 Exchange 14: Sources of meanings

Spkr Exchange Moves Phases Sourcing sources
T So we're going to follow the same pattern in K1 Prepare remind prior lesson
our writing as the text that we've just read.
We need to have the same introduction,
We're going to start with ‘water’. point notes on board
What is the water doing? dK1 Focus refer notes
S Moving K2 Propose read notes
T It's moving K1 Affirm
OK, good
Figure 15 Basic options for sources of meanings.
Students may recall items of knowledge, or infer answers implied by teachers’ questions.
This is perhaps the most common type of Focus question, that expects students to infer
an appropriate response.
Of course more detail may be added to these options. The system is drawn in Figure 15
to be as brief as possible, and is open to adjust and expand. For example, moving visual
texts may be film or performance, still images are of many kinds, aural texts may be
verbal, musical or both.
As it derives from observing pedagogic discourse, this analysis varies in some respects
from other models of communicative modalities. For example, the term ‘read’ is often
used in conjunction with visual images (Kress and van Leeuwen 1996), but only written
language can be read aloud; visual and aural texts can only be referred to in discussion.
The analysis also elaborates Martin’s analysis of mode as either accompanying or con-
stituting a field (Martin 1992, Martin and Rose 2007, 2008). This is because fields are
constructed from multiple sources as a lesson unfolds. This may not be as significant in
linguistic analysis of a recorded text, as the sources of meanings are fixed in the tran-
script; its wordings either present a field lexically or presume the activities and entities
they originally accompanied. But for teachers and learners in the midst of a lesson, the
sources of meanings are critical. The analysis here is intended to identify and hence
facilitate choices about the sources and sourcing of meanings in classroom learning.
This perspective also has implications for analysis of written texts, as reading is the
pedagogic activity through which their authors’ knowledge is exchanged. Their textual
organisation can be interpreted as managing the pedagogic activity, and their interper-
sonal patterns as managing the pedagogic relation.
Knowledge and values

The knowledge exchanged in a curriculum genre is realised by lexical items, and by
lexical relations and reference relations between items. Briefly, lexical relations include
a) nuclear relations between processes, people, things, places and qualities in an activity;
b) activity sequences that construe unfolding series of activities; c) taxonomic relations
between lexical elements in a text, including repetition, synonymy, contrast, meronymy
(whole-part) and hyponymy (class-member).
Both knowledge and pedagogic activity may be given value by appraisals, modal re-
sponsibility, vocation, and participation in the exchange. Appraisals include a) attitudes:
affect, judgements of people, appreciations of things; b) graduations of these attitudes;
c) engagement. Modal responsibility refers to the responsibility assigned to participants,
e.g. ‘we’re going to’. Vocation is the terms used to address participants, such as students’
names or teacher honorifics, e.g. sir, miss. Options for lexical relations and appraisal are
described in Martin and Rose 2007, Martin and White 2005. There is a large literature
on knowledge structures in both SFL and Bersteinian traditions, of which Martin and
Maton 2013 provide a useful overview.
Tables 16 and 17 adds experiential and interpersonal elements to the analysis. One
column presents experiential items, the other interpersonal elements. As there is
limited space in each column, items are presented selectively.
With respect to knowledge, this learning cycle commences a lesson activity whose
goal is to construct a figure (water keeps on moving), that is part of an explanation se-
quence in science (the water cycle). Elements of the figure are built up in each learning
cycle. We can simply use the term topic for such curriculum knowledge discussed in a
curriculum genre. Simultaneously, knowledge about language or KAL is presented,
applied and reinforced. In any lesson there may thus be two fields of knowledge, KAL
and topic.
The teacher prepares for the activity with KAL that the class has acquired from reading,
using items such as text, introduction, steps, conclusion, referring to the text that we’ve just
read, and to our writing that they are about to undertake, linked by ‘the same pattern’. She
Table 16 Exchange 15: Lexical and appraisal items

Spkr Exchange Moves Phases Sources Experiential Interpersonal
items
T So we're going to follow the same pattern K1 Prepare prior pattern, text, we're going to,
in our writing as the text that we've just lesson introduction, we need to
read. We need to have the same steps, conclusion
introduction, identify what it is we're
going to talk about, move through the
steps, and finish it with a conclusion.
T We're going to start with ‘water’. dK1 Focus notes on start with water we're going to
board
What is the water doing? dK1 Focus refer water doing
S moving K2 Propose notes moving
T It's moving K1 Affirm moving
OK, good OK, good
Table 17 Exchange 16: Experiential and interpersonal elements

Spkr Exchange Moves Phases Sources Experiential Interpersonal
T So we're going to follow the same pattern K1 Prepare prior pattern, text, we're going to,
in our writing as the text that we've just lesson introduction, we need to
read. We need to have the same steps, conclusion
introduction, identify what it is we're
going to talk about, move through the
steps, and finish it with a conclusion.
T We're going to start with ‘water’. dK1 Focus notes on start with water we're going to
board
What is the water doing? dK1 Focus refer water doing
S moving K2 Propose notes moving
T It's moving K1 Affirm moving
OK, good OK, good
also refers to the curriculum field they are studying as what it is we’re going to talk about.
Lexical relations include class - patterns in texts - to members - introduction, steps and
conclusion, and all these elements are presented in an activity sequence, the procedure
they will follow in writing. The class-member relations remind students of the reading
activity, to prepare the writing activity. As the activity begins, lexical relations include
nuclear relations between elements of a figure, water (entity) and moving (process); and
repetition: moving-moving. The nuclear relations guide students to propose the next
element; the repetition is used to affirm the choice for writing.
In the Prepare and Focus phases, modal responsibility includes teacher and students
together in the activity, we're going to, along with obligation, we need to. In the Affirm
phase, OK approves the choice of item for writing, while good acclaims the student.
The difference between valuing the response and praising the student can be seen with
grading; valuation: OK, that’s right, exactly; praise: good, well done, excellent.
From learning cycles to lesson activities

Having identified the functions of cycle phases, the sources of meanings, and the know-
ledge being accumulated, we can now widen our perspective to the learning activity
they are part of. First we can specify the functions of each learning cycle in the se-
quence of a learning activity, and secondly identify the phases of learning activities in
which they function. Further columns can be added to the analysis to show cycle func-
tions and activity phases. A series of learning cycles may serve one function in a learn-
ing activity, so they may be treated as a cycle complex.
Table 18 shows the initial activities in the Text Negotiation stage of a Joint Construc-
tion. In Table 18, five cycle complexes can be distinguished, of one or more learning cy-
cles. The functions of the first three cycle complexes are to 1) preview the activity, 2)
write the title, and 3) review the genre structure. The functions of the next two cycle
complexes are to 4) start writing the first sentence, and 5) complete the sentence.
At the rank of lesson activity, the function of cycles 1–3 is to specify the writing ac-
tivity, so these constitute the Focus phase of the lesson activity. The function of cycles
4–5 is to start creating the text, so these begin the lesson Task. These larger scale Focus
and Task are phases of the learning activity or activity phases.
Table 18 Exchange 17: Cycle functions and activity phases

Spkr Exchange Phases Specify Cycle Activity
functions phases
1 T So what we're going to do now is write our Prepare preview specify activity Focus:
own explanation, making sure that we activity
remember about the sequence of steps.
2 T So Mert, do you want to come up on the Direct scribing write title specify writing
smartboard and write the heading for us in task
the middle. Just write 'The Water Cycle'.
S1 [scribes 'The Water Cycle'] Scribe
3 T So we're going to follow the same pattern Prepare review specify activity
in our writing as the text that we've just read. genre
We need to have the same introduction, identify structure
what it is we're going to talk about, move
through the steps, and finish it with a conclusion.
T How about Peter? Can you come up and start Direct scribing
the first sentence please?
4 T We're going to start with 'water'. Focus item start first Task:
sentence createtext
S3 ‘moving' Propose item
T It's moving. OK, good. Affirm repeat
5 T What does it do? I can't say 'water moving', Focus structure complete
can I? We've got to change the word. sentence
S4 'keeps on' Propose structure
T We could say 'keeps on moving'. So yep 'keeps Affirm repeat
on'.
T So Peter, if you can write up, 'Water keeps on'. Direct scribing
S2 [scribes 'Water keeps on'] Scribe
T 'Water keeps on' What is it keeping on doing? Focus item
S5 'moving' Propose item
T keeps on moving' Affirm repeat
S2 [scribes 'moving'] Scribe
Analysis of pedagogic activity proceeds from both above and below. i.e. from the
functions of lesson activities in the curriculum genre, down to the functions of learning
cycle phases. The curriculum genre in this case is Joint Construction, and the lesson
stage is Text Negotiation, that has followed a Note Making stage; the activity involves
using the notes to create a new text. Within the Text Negotiation stage, each lesson activ-
ity includes the phases Focus (specifying the task), Task (creating the text) and Evaluate/
Elaborate (review the text). From below, the first Prepare phase functions to preview the
writing task, the next phases (2) start writing, and the next (3) review the genre structure.
From above, the general function of these phases is to specify the writing activity, consti-
tuting the Focus phase of the lesson activity. Cycle 4 commences the writing task, by spe-
cifying the first lexical item in the sentence. Cycles 5 complete the sentence, by specifying
the following structures and items. These cycles thus commence the Task phase of the
lesson activity.
While Joint Construction is a designed curriculum genre, the analysis can be applied
to any pedagogic practice to describe its structuring, functions and effectiveness. It can
also be used to design effective pedagogic practice. By way of illustration, it is applied
in Table 19 to beginning language learning, in the protolanguage stage (age 14 months,
Table 19 Exchange 18: Learning the mother tongue

Exchange Roles Cycle Sources Experiential Cycle
phases items functions
Child dae [pointing at bird] K2 Identify point at entity
Mother yes K1 Affirm prepare
bird Elaborate name entity bird word
Child da [pointing] K2 Identify point at entity
Mother bird K1 Elaborate name entity repeat bird
Child da [pointing] K2 Identify point at entity
Mother that’s a bird. K1 Elaborate refer & name entity refer & repeat bird
Child ba; ba [pointing] K2 Identify point & name entity repeat bird (ba) propose
Mother … K1 (Affirm) word
from Painter 1986:81). Language teaching may involve drawing the learner’s attention
to phenomena, or following the learner’s attention, shown in Table 19.
As the child initiates the exchange here, there is no Focus phase, but the pointing
and naming activity is prepared by thousands of instances of caregivers pointing and
naming the world, long before infants start to do so themselves. The task is to identify
elements in the sensory environment, and eventually to articulate their mother tongue
names, a universal pattern of human language learning. The mother capitalises on the
child’s attention, by first affirming, and then elaborating with the mother tongue word
bird. It is this evaluation and elaboration that marks this as a pedagogic exchange, in
which the mother is the teacher and the child the learner. The affirmation evaluates
the child’s utterance as success with a learning task, rewarding the child with positive
emotion. Expectation of this reward is the child’s motivation for pointing and naming,
and for engaging in pedagogic exchanges in general. In this instance, the reward
encourages the child to repeat the identifying act again and again. On the mother’s side,
she knows intuitively that success and affirmation enhance the child’s capacity for
learning, which she capitalises on by repeating her elaboration, initially just with the
word, but then with a whole clause. Elaborations such as these provide models of
mother tongue language features such as lexical items (bird) and grammatical struc-
tures (that’s a bird), at the precise moment when the child is most ready to recognise
and remember them. The outcome of repeated success and elaboration is that the child
begins to replicate the mother tongue word. Painter comments that ‘A few days later
‘ba’ became the regular form for bird’ (1986:82).
Table 4 illustrates the analysis with a manual activity. In this case an Indigenous
Australian elder is guiding a young person to dig for the delicacy tjala ‘honey ants’
(from Rose 2001, 2010). These insects live in small chambers a metre underground, at
the end of long narrow tunnels, so great skill is required to find them. The pedagogic
goal is learning to recognise the tunnels and excavate correctly to locate the honey ant
chambers without damaging them. The student identifies features and the teacher
guides by focusing attention, and affirming or rejecting what is identified. The features
are not named, but are pointed and referred to. The exchange is translated from the
original Pitjantjatjara; reference items are in bold.
This example illustrates the variable relations between pedagogic cycle phases and
pedagogic exchange roles. While the teacher directs activity with A2 commands, their
pedagogic function in cycles 2, 5 and 6 is Focus, followed by Identify and and Affirm/
Reject phases. Furthermore, the initial Identify phase is enacted as a K2 question, that
is rejected. The student’s non-verbal A1 actions in cycles 3 and 6 can also be analysed
pedagogically as Identify phases, since they are evaluated by the teacher. In efforts to
interpret Bernstein’s analysis of pedagogic discourse in terms of exchange structure, it
has been proposed to code knowledge exchanges as ‘instructional’ and action exchanges
as ‘regulative’ (e.g. Christie 2002). However, as action exchanges often also have an in-
structional function, Martin et al. (2007) propose a ‘double coding’ of such exchanges
as both action and knowledge. In contrast, pedagogic exchange structures and peda-
gogic activity cycles are analysed here as serving distinct interpersonal and ideational
functions. Pedagogic activity is negotiated as pedagogic exchange, and both require
distinct, complementary analyses.
Using a spreadsheet, analyses can be extended indefinitely, as a lesson unfolds. The
display facilitates the analysis, enabling the analyst to see patterns emerging in pedagogic
relations, activities, modalities, knowledge and values, illustrated in Table 5. Learning cycle
nuclei are shaded. To save space, non-verbal A1 roles are left implicit.
Detailed Reading is a highly designed curriculum genre in which teachers guide students
to read and comprehend texts that may be well beyond their assessed reading capacities
(Rose and Martin 2012, Rose 2014). The class here is junior secondary science, with stu-
dents whose literacy is very low. Table 5 illustrates key features of Detailed Reading, which
we can identify by examining each column of the analysis in turn. Firstly, the exchange
structures appear little different from the universal pedagogic dK1^K2^K1 pattern, but
participation differs from common practice in that the teacher usually addresses individual
students by name, so that nine students actively participate in turn in this brief extract
from the lesson.
Secondly, the pedagogic activity begins with preparing students for the activity (1),
and to comprehend sentences as the teacher reads them aloud (2). Focus phases then
guide students to identify each element of meaning in the sentences (3–4), by specifying
the meaning to identify, and/or its position in the sentence. Where necessary, the Focus is
preceded by a Prepare phase that provides semantic and/or position cues. Consequently,
each student successfully identifies the wordings under focus and is affirmed. The teacher
then directs the class precisely which words to highlight. This ensures that all students
successfully identify and understand each wording. Success and affirmation also ensure
that all students are able to comprehend and keep pace as the text is read, and are ready
for elaborations of meanings. Where appropriate, the teacher then elaborates the identi-
fied meaning, e.g. by reinforcing the technical field, e.g. state’s the scientific word we use
for whether it’s a solid, a liquid or a gas. Towards the end of the second sentence (4),
she elaborates a more complex feature of the technical field, two sides to the Water
Cycle. In the final cycles (5), the field is elaborated interactively by refering to the
water cycle diagram, and asking students to infer a technical process (condensation)
that had been discussed before reading.
Thirdly, the source of meanings during the reading activity is generally the text itself,
either refered to or read. Prepare and Focus phases usually refer to the text, but the
identifying task may be made easier by the teacher reading up to the words to identify.
Students then identify elements by reading the text. Elaborations either present the
teacher’s knowledge or remind students of prior cycles or lessons. In the elaborating
sequence (5) sources shift to eliciting and infering students’ knowledge, culminating
with presenting the teacher’s knowledge. This is a more common pattern in classroom
discourse, where sources are students’ or teachers’ knowledge.
Fourthly, experiential elements construe features of both the text and its technical
field. Prepare and Focus phases often refer to the text, students then identify the field
in the text, and the teacher may elaborate with more technicality. In the elaborating se-
quence (5), the technical field is related to commonsense what’s going on, makes it rain,
what must be happening, gets darker, could be icy. This diversion to commonsense is
less successful, as students intuitively relate cold to ice, when the technical process is
actually condensation from water vapour to liquid water. This pattern of guesswork
is very common in classes of less advantaged students. It is ameliorated here by the
focus on the written field.
Finally, interpersonal elements here are overwhelming intended to engage students in
the activity, inviting them, let’s now look, can we all, if we can, can you give me, just
make sure we’ve, and rewarding them by praising their success. Some appraisals are
features of the technical field, constantly, might have, maybe, all the way, might still be
just, that serve to grade processes and categories in science.
Conclusion
The goal of the analysis outlined above is an exhaustive description of curriculum genres.
Classroom discourse analysis is itself a genre, that varies with the informing theories and
specific purposes of the analyst. The analysis here is elaborate, as it is informed by the
elaborate social semiotic models of genre and register theory, and its purpose is an inte-
grated description of the whole of pedagogic practice. Genre and register theory enables
us to describe how knowledge is presented, accumulated and evaluated through pedagogic
activity; how pedagogic activity is organised as cycles of learning tasks, that are prepared,
focused, evaluated and elaborated by teachers; how pedagogic modalities are deployed as
sources of meanings; and how pedagogic relations are enacted in patterns of participation
and evaluation in teacher/learner exchanges.
Some of the analysis has previously been presented in SFL research, but is re-organised
and extended here. Pedagogic exchanges are described by Martin (2006), Martin and
Rose (2007), alongside the early language work of Halliday (1975), Painter (1984, 1986,
1999), and are extended here by analysing learner participation. Pedagogic activity as
learning cycles has been described by Rose (2004, 2007, 2010), Martin and Rose
(2007), Rose and Martin (2012), and is extended here by specifying the functions of
cycle phases. Knowledge and value as patterns of ideational and interpersonal meaning
is well described by Martin (1992), Halliday and Martin (1993), Christie (1999), Christie
and Martin (1997), Martin and Veel (1998), Martin and White (2005), Martin and Rose
(2007, 2008), Martin and Maton (2013). The analysis of pedagogic modalities as sources
of meanings was flagged in Rose (2010), and Rose and Martin (2012), but is more fully
delineated here
A further goal is to make this complex analysis as practicable as possible, allowing
rapid analysis of extended stretches of discourse. To this end, spreadsheets are used
with columns for each component of the analysis. This presentation enables relations
between each component to be readily seen, both horizontally within each role of an
exchange, and vertically as the exchange unfolds in time. A spreadsheet allows the
analysis to extend indefinitely, vertically in time, and horizontally in larger units, from
phases in learning cycles, to cycle functions, to phases in learning activites, to functions
of each activity in lesson stages, potentially up to whole lessons. Automated programs
also have the potential to manage this complexity, such as O’Halloran et al. (2013). To
make the analysis consistent and replicable, system networks have been outlined for
each component, suggesting how to categorise and label instances in discourse.
How the analysis is used will depend on the analyst’s purposes. Once patterns of
discourse in each component have been described, along with relations between com-
ponents, the next step is to interpret the patterns of pedagogic register that they realise.
For example, how inclusive are pedagogic relations, how effective are pedagogic activities
for groups of learners, how well are pedagogic modalities deployed to this end, what
knowledge structures are construed, and how are they evaluated? This level of interpret-
ation may enable evaluation of pedagogic practices (McNaught in prep), and design of
more effective practices (Kartika in prep). It may enable articulation with other models
of pedagogic practice, such as Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse, or Maton’s
legitimation code theory. It is capable of describing exhaustively how the categories of
any pedagogic theory are realised as genre, register and language.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 17 August 2014 Accepted: 31 October 2014
References
Alexander, R. 2000. Culture & Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bernstein, B. 1990. Class, Codes and Control 4: The Structuring Of Pedagogic Discourse. London: Routledge.
Bernstein, B. 2000. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis.
Berry, M. 1981. Systemic Linguistics and Discourse Analysis: A Multi-Layered Approach To Exchange Structure. In Studies
in Discourse Analysis, ed. M Coultard and M Montgomery, 120–145. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Childs, M. 2008. A Reading Based Theory of Teaching Appropriate For The South African Context, PhD Thesis. Port
Elizabeth, South Africa: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.
Christie, F. 1999. Pedagogy and The Shaping Of Consciousness: Linguistic And Social Processes. London: Cassell (Open
Linguistics Series).
Christie, F. 2002. Classroom Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
Christie, F, and JR Martin. 1997. Genre and Institutions: Social Processes In The Workplace And School. London: Cassell
(Open Linguistics Series).
Christie, F, and JR Martin. 2007. Language, Knowledge and Pedagogy: Functional Linguistic And Sociological
Perspectives. London: Continuum.
Christie, F, and K Maton. 2011. Disciplinarity: functional linguistic and sociological perspectives. London: Continuum. [Eds.].
Coffin, C, C Acevedo, and A-C Lövstedt. 2013. Teacher Learning for European Literacy Education (TeL4ELE) Final Report.
The Hague: European Union. http://tel4ele.eu/. Accessed October 2014.
Culican, S. 2006. Learning to Read: Reading to Learn, A Middle Years Literacy Intervention Research Project, Final Report
2003–4. Melbourne: Catholic Education Office. http://www.readingto learn.com.au. Accessed October 2014.
Dell, S. 2011. Reading Revolution, Mail & Guardian Online.. http://mg.co.za/article/2011-04-03-reading-revolution.
Accessed October 2014.
Dreyfus, S, S Hood, and M Stenglin. 2010. Semiotic Margins: Reclaiming Meaning. London: Continuum.
Gibbons, P. 2009. English Learners Academic Literacy and Thinking: Learning in the Challenge Zone. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Halliday, MAK. 1975. Learning How to Mean: Explorations In The Development Of Language. London: Edward Arnold
(Explorations in Language Study).
Halliday, MAK. 1978. Language as a Social Semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. London:
Edward Arnold.
Halliday, MAK. 1985/1989. Spoken and Written Language. Geelong: Deakin University Press/ Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Halliday, MAK, and JR Martin. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer (Critical Perspectives
on Literacy and Education).
Kartika, H. EFL Bilingual Programming in Indonesian Multilingual Classrooms, PhD Thesis. Sydney: University of
Technology. in prep.
Kress, G, and T van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading Images: the grammar of visual design. London: Routledge [Revised second
edition 2006].
Liu, Y. 2011. Bernsteinian perspectives on the Reading to Learn program. Annual Review of Functional Linguistics in
China 3: 109–123.
Martin, JR. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Martin, JR. 1996. Types of structure: deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text. In Computational and
Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues - An Interdisciplinary Account, ed. EH Hovy and DR Scott, 39–66.
Heidelberg: Springer.
Martin, JR. 1999. Mentoring semogenesis: 'genre-based' literacy pedagogy. In [reprinted in Martin, J.R. 2012. Language
in Education. Vol. 7 in the Collected Works of J.R. Martin. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press: 224-254],
ed. F Christie, 123–155.
Martin, JR. 2006. Metadiscourse: Designing Interaction in Genre-based Literacy Programs. In Language and Literacy:
Functional Approaches, ed. R Whittaker, M O'Donnell, and A McCabe, 95–122. London: Continuum.
Martin, JR, and S Dreyfus. Scaffolding Semogenesis: Designing Teacher/Student Interactions for Face-to-Face and
On-Line Learning S. Starc [Ed.]. London: Equinox.
Martin, JR, and K Maton. 2013. Cumulative Knowledge-Building in Secondary Schooling, Special Issue of Linguistics and
Education 24.1.
Martin, JR, and D Rose. 2007. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond The Clause. London: Continuum.
Martin, JR, and D Rose. 2008. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, JR, and R Veel. 1998. Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives On Discourses Of Science. London:
Routledge.
Martin, JR, and PRR White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: appraisal in English. London: Palgrave.
Martin, JR, M Zappavigna, and P Dwyer. 2007. Negotiating narrative: story structure and identity in youth justice
conferencing. Linguistics and Human Communication 3(2): 221–253.
Maton, K. 2014. Knowledge and Knowers: Towards A Realist Sociology Of Education. London: Routledge.
McNaught, L. Classroom Talk and Literacy: A Linguistic Analysis of Educational Exchanges, PhD Thesis. Sydney:
University of Sydney. in prep.
Millin, T. 2011. Scaffolding Academic Literacy with Undergraduate Social Science Students at the University of
KwaZulu-Natal using the Reading to Learn Intervention Strategy: an Evaluative Study, MSc Dissertation. The
University of Edinburgh: Moray House School of Education.
Nuthall, GA. 2005. The cultural myths and realities of classroom teaching and learning: a personal journey. Teachers
College Record 107(5): 895–934.
O’Halloran, KL, S Tan, and E M.K.L. 2013. A Multimodal Approach to Discourse, Context and Culture. In Discourse in
Context, ed. J Flowerdew, 247–272. London: Bloomsbury.
Painter, C. 1984. Into The Mother Tongue: A Case Study of Early Language Development. London: Pinter.
Painter, C. 1986. The Role of Interaction In Learning To Speak And Learning To Write. In Writing To Mean: Teaching
Genres Across The Curriculum, ed. C Painter and JR Martin, 62–97. Applied Linguistics Association of Australia
(Occasional Papers 9): Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (Occasional Papers 9).
Painter, C. 1999. Learning through Language in Early Childhood. London: Cassell.
Painter, C, JR Martin, and L Unsworth. 2012. Visual Narratives: Image Analysis in Children’s Picture Books. London: Equinox.
Rose, D. 2004. Sequencing and Pacing of the Hidden Curriculum: how Indigenous children are left out of the chain. In
Reading Bernstein, Researching Bernstein, ed. J Muller, A Morais, and B Davies, 91–107. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Rose, D. 2007. Towards A Reading Based Theory of Teaching. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Systemic
Functional Congress, São Paulo, Plenary paper in, ed. L Barbara and T Berber Sardinha.. PUCSP, 36–77. ISBN 85-283-
0342-X http://www.pucsp.br/isfc/proceedings/. Accessed October 2014.
Rose, D. 2010. Meaning Beyond The Margins: Learning To Interact With Books, 177–208.. In Dreyfus, Hood & Stenglin [Eds.].
Rose, D. 2011. Beating Educational Inequality with An Integrated Reading Pedagogy. In Literacy and Social
Responsibility: Multiple Perspectives, ed. F Christie and A Simpson, 101–115. London: Equinox.
Rose, D. 2014. Reading to Learn: Accelerating Learning And Closing The Gap. Sydney: Reading to Learn. http://www.
readingtolearn.com.au. Accessed October 2014.
Rose, D, and JR Martin. 2012. Learning to Write, Reading to Learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney
School. London: Equinox.
Rose, D, and JR Martin. 2013. Intervening in Contexts of Schooling (with J.R. Martin). In Discourse In Context:
Contemporary Applied Linguistics Volume 3, ed. J Flowerdew, 447–475. London: Continuum.
Rose, D, B Gray, and W Cowey. 1999. Scaffolding Reading and Writing for Indigenous Children in School. In Double
Power: English literacy and Indigenous Education, ed. P Wignell, 23–60. Melbourne: National Language & Literacy
Institute of Australia (NLLIA).
Rose, D, M Rose, S Farrington, and S Page. 2008. Scaffolding literacy for indigenous health sciences students. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes 7(3): 166–180.
Rothery, J. 1994. Exploring Literacy in School English (Write it Right Resources for Literacy and Learning). Sydney:
Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program. republished 2007 by Adult Migrant Education Service NSW.
Sinclair, J, and R Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: the English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London:
Oxford University Press.
Wells, G. 1999. Dialogic Inquiry: Toward A Sociocultural Practice and Theory Of Education. Cambridge: CUP (Learning in
Doing: social cognitive and computational perspectives).
doi:10.1186/s40554-014-0011-4
Cite this article as: Rose: Analysing pedagogic discourse: an approach from genre and register. Functional
Linguistics 2014 2:11.

Analysing-Pedagogic-Discourse David Rose

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysing-Pedagogic-Discourse David Rose

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysing-Pedagogic-Discourse David Rose

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rose Functional Linguistics 2014, 2:11

RESEARCH Open Access

Analysing pedagogic discourse: an approach from

1. Structuring of pedagogic exchanges, including roles of teachers and learners, which

A model for analysis

Figure 1 Genre, register and language.

Figure 2 Dimensions of a curriculum genre.

Analysing curriculum genres

Table 1 Register variables and discourse semantic patterns

Figure 3 TLC curriculum genre.

Figure 4 Text review stage in joint construction.

A minimal action exchange consists of just an A1 action, without an A2 demand, so A1 is

Table 2 Exchange 1: Pedagogic action exchange

Table 3 Exchange 2: Pedagogic knowledge exchange

Figure 5 Basic options for pedagogic exchange role.

Table 4 Exchange 3: Learning by doing

Figure 6 Classroom participation and educational success.

Table 6 Exchange 5: Individual student response and evaluation

Table 7 Exchange 6: Whole class participation

Table 8 Exchange 7: Teacher addresses individual student

Table 9 Exchange 8: Rejected response triggers a further cycle

Figure 7 Basic participation options.

Figure 8 Nucleus of pedagogic activity.

Figure 9 Optional phases of pedagogic activity.

Figure 10 Rank hierarchy of learning activities.

Table 10 Exchange 9: Nucleus of a learning cycle

Table 11 Exchange 10: Prepare phase in a learning cycle

Specifying cycle phases

Table 12 Exchange 11: Elaborating phases

Table 13 Exchange 12: Elaborating phase as exchange

Affirmation or rejection of a response indicates the effectiveness of Prepare and

Figure 11 Basic options for cycle phases.

Table 14 Exchange 13: Specifying cycle phases

Figure 12 Further options for focus and task phases.

Figure 13 Further options for Evaluate phases.

Figure 14 Pedagogic modalities: spoken, written, visual, gestural, manual.

Table 15 Exchange 14: Sources of meanings

Figure 15 Basic options for sources of meanings.

Knowledge and values

Table 16 Exchange 15: Lexical and appraisal items

Table 17 Exchange 16: Experiential and interpersonal elements

From learning cycles to lesson activities

Table 18 Exchange 17: Cycle functions and activity phases

Table 19 Exchange 18: Learning the mother tongue

Received: 17 August 2014 Accepted: 31 October 2014

You might also like