The Mediational Role of Classroom Practices During the Silent Period: A New-Immigrant Student Learning the English Language in a | Mainstream Classroom |

The Mediational Role of ClassroomPractices During the Silent Period: A New-Immigrant Student Learning the English Language in a Nashville, Tennessee, United States For this article we ai

The Mediational Role of Classroom

Practices During the Silent Period:

A New-Immigrant Student Learning

the English Language in a

Nashville, Tennessee, United States

For this article we aimed to understand the emergence of English as asecond language for a newly immigrated Mexican student, a nativespeaker of Spanish, enrolled in a mainstream kindergarten classroom,

who was undergoing the silent period (Krashen, 1981) Applying

ecologi-cal approaches that emphasize learners in relationship with their ronment, we analyzed three particular classroom practices and theirrespective mediational roles for the development of a second language(L2) Following Tomasello’s (1999, 2003) recognition that the under-standing of communicative intentions is an essential prerequisite forlanguage development, we argue that certain characteristics of routineclassroom practices (i.e., shared objects, infrastructural elements, andspeech patterns) provided key interactional and contextual affordancesfor the understanding and internalization of a shared system of symbols(linguistic and nonlinguistic) and, thus, for the emergence of the L2.This research suggests that our focal student was intentionally and ac-tively engaged in L2 learning during this period of silence In addition,our findings suggest that although the understanding of communica-

envi-tive intentions contributed to the legitimization of a student identity for

the learner during the silent period, it did not contribute to the ing of academic content We argue that ambiguity and multiplicity ofintentions conveyed in some classroom actions may be particularly chal-lenging for L2 learners in mainstream classrooms

learn-Despite research efforts to strengthen pedagogical methods andteacher preparation programs to address the needs of newly arrivedimmigrant English language learners (ELLs) included in English-dominant classrooms, these students continue to be underestimated in

their abilities to learn Given that rapid demographic shifts in the UnitedStates indicate that the number of immigrant children enrolling inschools will continue to increase (Trueba, 1999), a clearer understand-ing of how new immigrant children (less than 2 years in the UnitedStates) reconcile the daunting tasks involved in being a student in a newlanguage and cultural context is of national concern (see Snow, 2002).Drawing on data collected during a larger, 1-year naturalistic inquiryinto the L2 learning of four newly arrived immigrant Mexican students(less than 2 years in the United States and native speakers of Spanish)enrolled in a mainstream kindergarten classroom in a small school dis-trict in the Southeastern United States, we examined the mediationalrole of classroom practices as our focal students came to create andexpress meaning verbally and nonverbally in the new cultural/linguisticenvironment For this article, we focus on one particular student who,for the duration of the study, was undergoing the silent period As de-

scribed in Krashen’s (1981) monitor theory, the silent period characterizes

an early stage of L2 development during which some L2 learners, cially children, do not try to speak in the L2 (see also Krashen, 1985;Krashen & Terrell, 1983)

espe-For the analysis of three episodes representative of regular classroomactivities, we used ecological approaches emphasizing interactions be-tween learners and their surrounding contexts (van Lier, 2002, 2004)and relied on Tomasello’s (2003) usage-base linguistic theories, whichindicate that language development requires the understanding of com-municative intentions

THE SILENT PERIOD

Although the existence of a silent period has been reported by studies insecond language acquisition (SLA) (Ellis, 1994), research addressing thisperiod of silence in early stages of language development has beenscarce in the recent literature on education However, mainstream teach-ers encountering a growing number of recently immigrated ELLs intheir classrooms continue to be puzzled by their students’ silence andoften question what students are learning during this time

Indeed, researchers disagree about whether and how this particularstage contributes to L2 learning For Krashen (1981), the silent periodhas didactic implications in SLA, supporting his idea that language learn-ers must be provided with a large quantity of comprehensible linguisticinput and must be given time to digest the input before being urged toproduce linguistic output Gibbons (1985) investigated two of Krashen’smajor assumptions about the silent period, questioning whether it actu-ally results from the need for input and acquisition before speaking and

whether the L2 curriculum should include an initial period of silence.His study demonstrated that a period of silence, rather than beneficial toSLA, may signal a lack of comprehension and, if prolonged, may markpsychological withdrawal rather than acquisition Similarly, Itoh andHatch (1978) argued that an extended silent period does not make anycontribution to SLA, especially because some children sink into it byresisting or avoiding L2 learning.

In contrast, Clarke (1989), when examining the role of the silentperiod in the acquisition of English as a second language of one Viet-namese preschooler, argued that it may be a period of intense learningand that the development of a social network during this time is impor-tant in determining whether the child gains access to the new language.Saville-Troike’s (1988) study involving nine young Chinese L2 learnersalso highlighted a positive aspect of the silent period by linking it withproductive private speech Using video recordings with powerful radiomicrophones, Saville-Troike’s study revealed that during the silent pe-riod, six out of the nine students in the study advanced their own learn-ing by engaging in extensive private speech involving repetition of oth-ers’ utterances, rehearsal for overt social performance, innovations oflinguistic forms, lexical substitutions, practice, and so on In addition,she contended that the experience of a silent period is closely related tothe learners’ social and cognitive orientation, which creates a fundamen-

tal distinction between two types of learners: other-directed and

inner-directed The other-directed learners “approach language learning as an

interpersonal, social task with a predominant focus on the message theywish to convey,” and the inner-directed learners view language learning

as an “intrapersonal task, with a predominant focus on the languagecode” (p 568) These inner-directed learners are reflective in nature andtypically go through the silent period by not initiating communicativeinteractions with target language speakers In addition, she found thatinner-directed learners produced private speech (i.e., speak silently tothemselves and are inaudible to anyone present) during the silent pe-riod By closely examining the nature of the use of private speech, Saville-Troike asserted that, although there was no social linguistic productionduring the silent period, the inner-directed, reflective learners were ac-tually making extensive use of a variety of intrapersonal language learn-ing strategies, such as repetition or rehearsal

Although views about the silent period and its relevance to SLA vary,most of the studies have approached the topic from an individual ordevelopmental perspective For instance, although Saville-Troike’s studyprovided insights on the productive learner activities during the silentperiod, her conclusion attributed the nature of the activities to indi-vidual learners’ innate characteristics (i.e., other-directed versus inner-

directed) Not much consideration has been given to how learner tions during the silent period could be socially situated and culturally1constructed within a particular context By noting this limitation, weattempt to approach the phenomenon of the silent period from anecological perspective that regard as main concerns for study a variety ofrelationships among learners, others, practices, and contexts.

ac-AN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO L2 LEARNING:

CONSIDERING THE CONTEXT OF ACTIVITY

Although the term ecology has referred mostly to a scientific discipline

that considers the relationships of an organism with all other organisms,

an expanded notion of ecology in social sciences research (Cole, 1996;Rogoff, 1990) seeks to understand the dynamic relations of learners andthe world, whether it is at a macrolevel (e.g., culture, history, or socio-economic status) or at a microlevel (e.g., interactions, physical objects,

or dialogues) More specifically, in relation to language learning, an

ecological approach focuses on “language as relations between people and the world, and on language learning as ways of relating more effec-

tively to people and the world” (van Lier, 2004, p 4, emphasis added) Inthis way, studies of language learning from an ecological perspectiveinclude an investigation of dynamic and mutual influences betweenlearners and surrounding contexts through semiotic resources such asthe first language (L1) or L2 rather than investigations of the processingmechanism of linguistic input and output or predeterministic and nor-mative notions of learning style

Van Lier (2004) described an ecological approach to be neither atheory nor a method with which to do research but instead as a way ofthinking (and acting), allowing for broad understandings of cultural,historical, social, institutional, and linguistic phenomena in the class-room Although not a theory per se, the ecological approach draws fromtheoretical positions such as sociocultural theory

At the core of the sociocultural theory is the concept of mediation,

which emphasizes the dynamic interactions and negotiations betweenlearners and material/symbolic artifacts (i.e., cultural tools) (Valsiner,2001; Vygotsky, 1978, 1987; Wertsch, 1991, 1998; Wertsch, Del Rio, &Alvarez, 1995) Both the ecological approach and sociocultural theoryrecognize the significance of the context and its mediating role for hu-man minds and actions and, furthermore, consider development as in-separable from the contexts of activities

1The term cultural here refers to the ways of acting, thinking, speaking, and behaving

characteristic of a particular discursive context, in this case, schools.

Two central tenets of the ecological approach to language learning

are the concepts of emergence and affordance These are intimately related

to the notion of mediation That is, this approach proposes that guage emerges as a mediated and situated activity from interactionsbetween a learner and his or her surrounding context From this per-spective, then, the emergence of language cannot be understood with-out considering the physical, social, and symbolic context in which learn-ers are engaged The ecological approach considers the context of hu-

lan-man activity through the idea of affordance, which refers to “what is

available to the person to do something with” (van Lier, 2004, p 91).Herein, language arises from, and is mediated through, various types ofaffordances or a myriad of opportunities for meaningful action and in-teraction offered to an engaged participant

Thus, when L2 learning in the classroom setting is viewed from anecological perspective, the classroom practices per se become a media-tional process in shaping particular relationships between learner andcontext A learner’s actions are understood in relation to the constraintsand affordances of a particular instructional context and its inherentsocial practices Using this approach, then, researchers can ask certainquestions: “What is it in this environment that makes things happen theway they do?” and “how does learning come about within this particularcontext of activity?” (van Lier, 2004, p 13)

For our research, we found the ecological approach particularly evant as we aimed to understand how a kindergarten student undergo-ing the silent period began to create and express meaning in the newlinguistic and cultural environment of school, while also attending to thetasks of becoming a legitimate member of the classroom, learning a newlanguage, and gaining knowledge of the content of instruction (see alsoKramsch, 2002; Lave & Wenger, 1991) In the next section, we focusspecifically on the microlevel phenomenon of language emergence aslanguage learners’ perceptions and actions are mediated through vari-ous physical, symbolic, and interactional affordances

rel-INTERACTIONAL AND CONTEXTUAL AFFORDANCES FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING

Recent advances in SLA research have underscored the role of actional and contextual affordances for language learning Ellis andLarsen-Freeman (2006), for example, have claimed that L2 learning can

inter-be inter-better understood when it is conceived through the lens of

emergent-ism, or the idea that “patterns in language development and of language

use are neither innately prespecified in language learners/users nor arethey triggered solely by exposure to input Instead, language behavior is

said to emerge from the interaction between the agent and the agent’s

environment” (p 577, emphasis added) According to this view, theimperfect relationship between what the context demands and whatlanguage is available to the language learner/user, provides opportuni-ties for successive (and sometimes chaotic) reorganizations of linguisticfeatures These reorganizations of linguistic features eventually give rise

to certain regularities or patterns which are qualitatively different fromearlier organizations

In his discussions about the contributions of sociocultural theory andresearch to L2 learning, Lantolf (2006) has also emphasized the impor-tance of interactional and contextual affordances in language learningprocesses Highlighting two of Vygotsky’s central theoretical constructs,mediation and internalization, Lantolf stressed the notion that the socialand cultural contexts should not be considered as mere factors influenc-ing cognitive development, as these are, in fact, the source of specificallyhuman forms of development (p 69) For example, in educational set-tings certain physical and symbolic artifacts (e.g., linguistic and numericsystems, books, pen, papers, diagrams, charts, and so forth) mediate therelationships between individuals as well as between individuals and theirmaterial and mental worlds and have the goal to help students developconceptual knowledge (p 70) As individuals appropriate, or internal-ize,2these cultural artifacts into their own psychological functions, theyare able to abstract from their physical worlds and to act independentlyfrom their immediate realm of perception through the organization andreorganization of symbols (e.g., understanding that 2 + 3 = 5)

Lantolf (2006) pointed out that Vygotsky was particularly interested inthe ways children gained control over and made use of different culturalartifacts as mediational means afforded by their environments when con-

fronted with difficult tasks Lantolf highlighted the role of imitation as an

important mechanism for the internalization of socially constructedforms of mediation, including language Tomasello’s (1999, 2003)model of language acquisition also assigns a central role to imitativeprocesses, which we discuss in the following section

IMITATION, COMMUNICATIVE INTENTIONS,

linguistic knowledge and to socialize into their community Two major

aspects relating to intention reading are the establishment of

joint-attentional frames and role-reversal imitation The joint-joint-attentional frames

established among interlocutors are regarded as one of the initial stepsfor communication to occur (Tomasello, 1999, 2003; van Lier, 2002).Through constantly monitoring each other’s attention during interac-tion, attentional frames are jointly established and coherently sustained

to “create a common intersubjective ground within which children andadults may understand one another’s communicative attempts and theircurrent relevance” (Tomasello, 2003, p 25)

These joint-attentional frames are characterized as a triadic mediationthat involves both people and objects engaged in the particular interac-tion Within the joint-attentional frames, a child comes to understandcommunicative intentions by recognizing that an adult is making somesounds with the particular intention that the child attend to an object.This object is not always material but can be an event or idea beingreferred to linguistically or by nonlinguistic signs or symbols

Once a learner understands the communicative intentions embedded

in linguistic interactions, the learner attempts to express his or her ownparticular communicative intentions More specifically, children initiate

their utterances by engaging in role-reversal imitation, where they “must

learn to use a symbol toward the adult in the same way the adult used ittoward them” (Tomasello, 2003, p 27) Through performing this role-reversal imitation, therefore, children learn the ways of using linguisticsymbols understood intersubjectively from both sides of the interaction(e.g., the use of first- and second-person pronouns) In this way, lan-guage emergence is characterized by the development of complex lin-guistic abilities through transformation rather than through repetition

or mimicking, and it happens not in a linear, gradual fashion, but rather,

as a process of growth and reorganization of semiotic systems

Although Tomasello’s (2003) linguistic theories are intended to plain children’s L1 development, we find his explications of how humanscome to understand and to participate in communicative interactions to

ex-be particularly compelling for the investigation of ex-beginning-level L2learners as they come to understand and participate in communicativeinteractions in a new language and culture His theory informed us toattend to various resources in the classroom and to features of taken-for-granted classroom practices in order to understand how they mayplay a critical role as affordances for SLA For example, in examining themicrolevels of the classroom, we paid particular attention to various types

of affordances for language learning, such as the physical, social, andlinguistic cues, signaling communicative intentions that attracted inter-locutors’ perceptions and attention and purposefully engaged them in aparticular activity

In addition, for our research, we have also considered Olson’s (1994)cautionary claim that an understanding of communicative intentionsmay not necessarily imply an understanding of intentionality (p 128).Olson explains that to understand one’s intentionality, the listener musthave an understanding of what one means by what one says, and “that is

a matter of understanding what one wants a listener to think, or thinks

a listener thinks” (p 130) In other words, to understand intentionality,one must have an increased understanding of intersubjectivity to be able

to interpret what was meant by the speaker (or writer) For Olson, this is

a sophisticated (or in his words, “second-order” [p 130]) level of standing Moreover, he goes on to say that young children (up to the age

under-of 8) may have difficulty in understanding intentionality from a point under-ofview other than their own That is, although they may be able to identifywhat they thought a listener would understand by what was said, they maynot know that other interpretations may be possible This point is ex-emplified by our study, to which we now turn

THE STUDY

In congruence with the theoretical framework just delineated, for thisresearch we describe and explain the mediational role of classroompractices in the emergence of the L2, particularly in the case of onestudent, Juan, who was undergoing the silent period By observing ac-tions involving physical or symbolic tools—including dialogue—we cap-tured the actions, interactions, and discourse of participating memberswithin the context of a kindergarten classroom

The focus of our analysis, then, was the understanding of how the L2was emerging by observing how one specific student integrated a system

of signs and symbols into the tasks in which he was involved as he came

to create and express meaning in the new linguistic, cultural, and tutional setting of school Using this method of analysis as a frame ofreference, we examined language development as it happened both overtime and from moment to moment

insti-Methods

This study stems from a larger naturalistic inquiry into the languageand literacy development of L2 students in mainstream classrooms Theclassroom observed was selected on the basis of (a) the principal’s rec-ommendation in relation to a highly interactive and inclusive classroomenvironment and (b) the teachers’ willingness to have research con-

ducted in their classroom Kindergarten was of particular interest to usbecause it represents the entranceway to the institutional context ofschool The focal students were selected on the basis of (a) their nativelanguage being other than English and (b) the fact that they had neverattended the institutional context of school before entering kindergar-ten in the United States.

Qualitative research methods and a case study design were used Forthe larger study, the focal participants were four recent-immigrant Mexi-can students included in a kindergarten mainstream classroom, twoteam-teachers, and to a lesser extent, the other 16 children in the class.The school was located in a small town in the Southeastern United Statesthat had experienced a sudden increase in its Spanish-speaking popula-tion The classroom was orderly, and the children seemed engaged ininstructional activities for the majority of the time during our observa-tions The teachers were both white and English monolingual Each hadabout 25 years of experience as a kindergarten teacher; however, neitherhad much experience in working with L2 learners They had been team-teaching for the past 12 years and held similar philosophical assumptionsabout the teaching of kindergarten as well as about the teaching of L2students They both believed that the main goal of kindergarten was tosocialize students in the culture of schools by helping the children learnhow to follow procedures and how to act as a student Regarding theirorientation toward language use in the classroom, they both followed theEnglish-only federal policy guidelines for instruction in all subject areas,aiming to promote the expedient acquisition of English for the ELLs inthe class Thus, no languages other than English were spoken in theclassroom

Two researchers and one research assistant conducted this tion as participant-observers For one academic year (September toMay), we visited the classroom about two to three times a week at dif-ferent times of the day to observe a variety of classroom activities Inaddition, we observed our focal students in various contexts within theschool, such as the cafeteria, the playground, the Spanish class, and theESL class The data consisted of field notes, anecdotal records of stu-dents’ interactions, academic artifacts (i.e., student products), about 20hours of videotape, and audiotaped interviews Individual interviewswere conducted with the two classroom teachers, the principal, the ESLteacher, the Spanish teacher, and our focal students on an as-neededbasis Focal students’ interviews were carried out in both English andSpanish, moving from one language to the other when appropriate Dataanalysis was ongoing throughout the study and lasted for several monthsafter the period of data collection The highlighted episodes were pur-posefully selected because they reflect routine practices of the classroomand were useful in helping us understand the processes of L2 learning

investiga-The data presented in this article pertain to a case-study involving a5-year-old student—Juan (a pseudonym)—who was undergoing the si-lent period He had emigrated from Jalisco, Mexico, about 1 year prior

to the beginning of this investigation His father was a constructionworker, and his mother worked in the fast food industry He had nosiblings He was preliterate in both Spanish and English and spoke onlySpanish at home

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

For this study, we analyzed three episodes depicting regularly ring (daily or weekly) classroom practices involving the particular case ofJuan, one of our focal participants: the Quiet Mouse, learning centers,and testing practices We organize our presentation of the data withinthree major types of affordances that contributed to intention readingand thus to the emergence of the L2 The types of affordances discussed

occur-in our analysis are a shared object, speech patterns, and the occur-tural3 elements of a particular classroom practice

infrastruc-Affordance 1 A Shared Object—The Quiet Mouse

This practice was performed during transitions between class activitiesmainly in order to keep students quiet Teachers did not play a majorrole in this practice except assigning a student to initiate the practice Astudent holding a mouse puppet in her or his hand walked aroundamong other students, who were sitting on the floor, to find the quietestchild Students were waiting silently, wishing to be picked The one whowas picked took over the mouse puppet and continued the activity bywalking around and picking the next student This quiet-mouse practicetook place more than once per day It worked to re-establish order in theclassroom during transitional periods One of the major characteristics

of this Quiet Mouse practice was that one physical object (i.e., the mousepuppet) played a major mediational role in promoting students’ activeparticipation in the practice In addition, the object allowed students totake particular roles (e.g., an appointer and an appointee) in a legiti-mate fashion

The presence of the mouse puppet contributed to establishing attentional frames among students by drawing their attention to the

joint-3By infrastructures we mean the organizational, structural, and procedural elements that

teachers put into place to facilitate and make expedient the routines of the classroom.

particular object itself Once a student with the mouse stood up in front

of other students to make the gesture of selecting a quiet student, otherobjects in the classroom (e.g., alphabet charts, rugs, crayons, or books)that did not have immediate relevance to the practice were excludedfrom the students’ attention Students engaged in the practice attendedjointly to the mouse puppet while doing the Quiet Mouse

In relation to Juan, we noted that two sets of joint-attentional frameswere established during this practice One frame involved Juan, themouse puppet, and other students sitting on the floor The other wasformed by Juan, the mouse puppet, and a student holding the puppet(see Figure 1) In the first frame, Juan’s gaze, as well as other students’,followed the mouse puppet In the second frame (which in fact tookplace simultaneously with the first frame), Juan’s gaze still followed themouse while the student with the mouse was exploring randomly to findthe quietest classmate These two sets of joint-attentional frames can also

be said to form two sets of referential triangles in which linguistic, cially indicational, processes might occur

espe-These frames featured a triadic interaction in the sense that tions between Juan and other(s) were heavily structured by the object oftheir joint attention, which was the mouse puppet In other words, themouse puppet played a role as the “third interlocutor of sorts” in thethree-way interaction (van Lier, 2002, p 148), as well as a major mediator

interac-in drawinterac-ing students’ attention to, and engagement interac-in, the practice Thecommon ground established through this joint engagement formed thereferential triangles within which communication, both intentional andlinguistic, between Juan and other, native-speaking peers took place.Within these joint-attentional frames, the shared mouse puppetplayed a role as a communicative sign that signified particular intentions

of the individuals involved in the practice For instance, if a student wore

FIGURE 1 Joint-Attentional Frames Established During the Quiet Mouse Practice

(adapted from Tomasello, 2003, p 26).

the mouse puppet, the puppet mediated communication between thestudent and others by signaling the student’s intention: “I will pick one

of you You should be quiet to be picked.” In addition, other studentswho did not have the puppet followed the mouse with quiet gazes Thissituation might signal to Juan their shared intention involving the pup-pet: “I will not make a sound because I want to get the puppet.”Juan seemed to understand various communicative intentions sig-naled by the presence or absence of the puppet He was observed toperform appropriate actions for the practice During the Quiet Mouse,Juan was not only quiet but also pointed to himself as if to say, “Hey, pickme! I am quiet.” This action served as evidence that Juan understoodanother person’s intention in the specific practice and that the under-standing of intention influenced his intentional state in ways relevant tothe situation The object of the mouse puppet, in other words, mediatedthis communication through intention reading and actively engagedJuan in the practice

In addition, the Quiet Mouse characterized flexible role-taking: Once

a student holding the mouse puppet (i.e., appointer) picked a studentfrom the ones sitting on the floor (i.e., potential appointees), the newstudent took the role of appointer In other words, to imitate another’srole, including their intentional actions and utterances, was one of thenecessary actions to participate in the Quiet Mouse

Tomasello (2003) argued that this role-reversal imitation involved produc[ing] triadically [others’] novel intentional actions on outsideobjects” (p 26) This role-reversal imitation is distinctive from face-to-face dyadic mimicking observed in early infancy in the sense that par-ticipants understand that persons are making intentional utterances andactions (Tomasello, 2003) In Juan’s case, it was observed that when hewas playing the appointer, he reproduced appropriate actions for therole, including holding the mouse puppet on his hand, walking aroundstudents, looking at each student cautiously, delaying to make a decision,and finally pointing to only one student This series of actions demon-strated that Juan reproduced an appointer’s intentional actions but notaccidental ones In particular, the mouse puppet mediated this role-reversal imitation by granting Juan’s reversed role from appointee toappointer and by affirming his authority over other students

“re-The Quiet Mouse practice was found to provide an opportunity forJuan to learn particular actions and utterances related to this activity in

a context in which intention reading could take place effectively though silence was the aim of this practice, kindergarteners often madeutterances relating to the practice, such as, “Hey, be quiet!,” “I’m quiet.Pick me,” “She picked XXX”, and “XXX was picked!” The students’

Al-utterances developed from a few core ideas (e.g., picking, being picked, and