Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:04:34.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

“Sharing time”: Children's narrative styles and differential access to literacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Sarah Michaels
Affiliation:
School of Education, University of California, Berkeley

Abstract

A discourse-oriented classroom activity in an ethnically mixed, first grade classroom is studied from an interpretive perspective, integrating ethnographic observation and fine-grained conversational analysis. “Sharing time” is a recurring activity where children are called upon to describe an object or give a narrative account about some past event to the entire class. The teacher, through her questions and comments, tries to help the children structure and focus their discourse. This kind of activity serves to bridge the gap between the child's home-based oral discourse competence and the acquisition of literate discourse features required in written communication.

Through a detailed characterization of the children's sharing styles, evidence is provided suggesting that children from different backgrounds come to school with different narrative strategies and prosodic conventions for giving narrative accounts. When the child's discourse style matches the teacher's own literate style and expectations, collaboration is rhythmically synchronized and allows for informal practice and instruction in the development of a literate discourse style. For these children, sharing time can be seen as a kind of oral preparation for literacy. In contrast, when the child's narrative style is at variance with the teacher's expectations, collaboration is often unsuccessful and, over time, may adversely affect school performance and evaluation. Sharing time, then, can either provide or deny access to key literacy-related experiences, depending, ironically, on the degree to which teacher and child start out “sharing” a set of discourse conventions and interpretive strategies. (Urban communication, ethnic/subcultural differences in discourse style, the transition to literacy, American English.)

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Au, K. H. (1980). On participation structures in reading lessons. Anthropology and education quarterly XI, number 2: 91115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, J., & Michaels, S. (1980). The importance of conversational discourse strategies in the acquisition of literacy. In Proceedings of the sixth Annual Meetings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Cooley, R. (1979). Spokes in a wheel: A linguistic and rhetorical analysis of Native American public discourse. In Proceedings of the fifth Annual Meetings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, F. (1971). Studying black rhetoric and logic: An anthropological approach to contrastive analysis. Paper delivered at American Educational Research Association, New York City.Google Scholar
Erickson, F. (1975). Gatekeeping and the melting pot. Harvard educational review 45: 4470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1976). Language, communication, and public negotiation. In Sanday, P. (ed.), Anthropology and the public interest. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1976). Context in children's speech. In Papers on language and context. (Working Paper #46) Berkeley: Language Behavior Research Laboratory, University of California.Google Scholar
Ladd, R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Michaels, S., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1979). A study of sharing time with first grade students: Discourse narratives in the classroom. In Proceedings of the fifth Annual Meetings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar