The Multivoices of Kenyan Primary School Children Learning to Read and Write 3030381099, 9783030381097

Citation preview

The Multivoices of Kenyan Primary School Children Learning to Read and Write Esther Mukewa Lisanza

The Multivoices of Kenyan Primary School Children Learning to Read and Write

Esther Mukewa Lisanza

The Multivoices of Kenyan Primary School Children Learning to Read and Write

Esther Mukewa Lisanza Department of African Studies Howard University Washington, DC, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-38109-7    ISBN 978-3-030-38110-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38110-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: John Rawsterne/patternhead.com This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To all Kenyan children

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge several people who have made this work come to completion. My mentor Dr. Anne Haas Dyson for her suggestions on the earlier version of my introduction chapter; my fellow researchers Dr. Barbara Comber and Dr. Sophie Dewayani for their suggestions on the earlier versions of Chaps. 2 and 5, respectively. I am forever indebted to you all. I am equally very grateful to the Kenyan teachers I worked with, namely, Mrs. Kyeni and Ms. Tina, and their pupils for allowing me in their classrooms. Asanteni sana. My children Sidney, Vivian and Lilly, who inspired me from a very tender age to watch kids’ programs, read children’s stories and listen to their stories and dreams. You got me hooked to what children like. I am forever thankful for your love and support. You are the best. My husband Leonard, for your love and support over the years and for listening to my stories and dreams and above all, for reading the entire earlier version of this book! I am forever grateful. And finally, I must thank my three sisters Teresa, Beth and Hilda, for running up and down to make sure I got all the documents and connections I needed in Kenya. I am forever thankful.

vii

Contents

1 Introduction  1 Language and Education Situation in Kenya   2 Mutituni and Nyika Primary Schools   4 Theoretical Framework: Sociocultural and Dialogic   6 Research Design   9 Related Scholarship in Early Childhood Literacy, Second Language and Bilingualism/Multilingualism  10 Plan of the Book  14 References  15 2 The Enactment of Official Language Policies in Mutituni and Nyika Primary Schools: Their Impact on Learning 19 Official Language Policy at Mutituni Primary School  22 Official Language Policy at Nyika Primary School  30 References  42 3 The Enacted English Reading Curriculum 45 The Enacted Reading Curriculum at Mutituni Primary School  47 The Enacted Reading Curriculum at Nyika Primary School  58 References  70 4 The Enacted Writing Curriculum 73 Writing Practices at Nyika Primary School  74 References  95 ix

x 

CONTENTS

5 The Unofficial Practices: What Are the Children Telling Us? 97 Children’s Symbolic Repertoires and Linguistic Repertoires: The Place of Talk  99 The Place of Drawing in Children’s (Written) Language Development 111 Nyika Children’s English Stories 126 References 140 6 Enacting Children’s Multiple Voices: Implications for Theory, Policy and Pedagogy143 Theoretical Implications 143 Policy Implication: National and Local Language Policies 144 Curriculum and Pedagogical Implications 147 References 152 Appendix155 References157 Index163

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3 Fig. 4.4 Fig. 4.5 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5 Fig. 5.6 Fig. 5.7 Fig. 5.8 Fig. 5.9 Fig. 5.10

“Speak English” sign 20 Kalu’s dictation 1 77 Kalu’s dictation 2 82 Imani’s copying off board and drawing 90 Kalu’s handwriting 92 Kalu’s debate points 94 Kadogo’s letter to Subira 98 Msafiri’s drawing 101 Kanze’s drawing 102 Yusufu’s note to Jabali 105 Kasuku’s drawing 112 Msafiri’s “Mkokoteni” and “Nyumbani”114 Kanze—means of transport 115 Kyalo’s animal drawing 117 Maria’s items labeled in English and Swahili 118 Ndindi’s drawing 119

xi

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Kalu: That is Mount Everest. Jabali: No! That’s Mount Kenya. Hiyo si (That’s not) Mount Everest. Kalu: Hiyo ni (That’s) Mount Everest. The above exchange is between two grade two children in Kenya. The children are rolling two old car wheels at the school’s playground and on the horizon the clouds have cleared, and they are able to see some mountain ranges. They start figuring out which are those mountain ranges. Kalu thinks that must be the tallest mountain on earth, Mount Everest. While Jabali thinks it must be the tallest mountain in Kenya, Mount Kenya. In their talk they make use of the two languages they speak: Swahili and English. As these two children and their peers across the nation learn to read and write, bilingualism or multilingualism or translanguaging is the norm in their daily interactions despite the imposed monolingual education policies which were set in motion during colonial era. Many studies have been done on language and literacy development in other parts of the world (e.g., Cazden, 2001; Clay, 1975; Dyson, 1989, 2003; Sahni, 2001; Samway, 2006; Watts, 1995); however, there is paucity of research focusing on African children learning to read and write. Therefore, a desire for an African-focused book on children learning to read and write a second language led to this book. The book covers both official (teacher-controlled) and “unofficial” (children-controlled) (Dyson, 1989, 2003) (see the opening quote) curricula of African ­children. © The Author(s) 2020 E. M. Lisanza, The Multivoices of Kenyan Primary School Children Learning to Read and Write, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38110-3_1

1

2 

E. M. LISANZA

The book is based on two ethnographic case studies. One case study was done in an urban primary school while the other was done in a rural primary school. Both schools are located in Kenya. The chapters in the book provide a means to examine the interplay between the official national language policy and local (school) language policies and how these policies are enacted in the classroom. The chapters also explore the interplay between the official curriculum and unofficial curriculum. Thus, through the analysis of the two case studies, which are situated in diverse sociocultural and socioeconomic sites, the project has generated: (1) what reading and writing may mean for children; (2) variations in the relationship between official and unofficial writing and reading practices; (3) implications of using a first or a second language as medium of instruction for children, teachers and other stakeholders. To understand the sociolinguistic and education situation in Kenya within which this project is situated, it is important to appreciate the sociopolitical processes which have been played out in Kenya’s history and the influence that these processes have had on what languages are to be taught in Kenyan schools and how these languages would be taught. Also, it will be important to appreciate the physical and social contexts of both schools and the impact that these contexts have had on language learning in both schools. To do this, I will briefly discuss the education language policy during colonial and postcolonial Kenya. This will be followed by a discussion of the physical and social contexts of both schools. In addition, I will discuss the sociocultural (i.e., Vygotskian) and dialogic (i.e., Bakhtinian) theoretical frameworks which informed my data collection and analysis. Then, I will briefly discuss the research design. Moreover, I will engage with the related scholarship in early childhood literacy and second language studies, and bilingualism/multilingualism. Finally, I will give an outline of the remaining chapters in the book.

Language and Education Situation in Kenya Throughout the colonial era pupils in Kenyan primary schools were taught in their first languages (L1) in grades one to four; during these grades, English was taught as a subject for about two or three years in African and Asian heritage schools, and thereafter it became a language of instruction from grade five onward (Sifuna, 1980). By the middle of the 1950s, there was growing dissatisfaction about the poor performance of African and Asian children in Kenya’s national examinations which were written in

1 INTRODUCTION 

3

English compared to their European counterparts who did the same examinations (Sifuna, 1980). The poor performance was blamed on the use of L1 as language of instruction for the African and Asian children (Muthwii, 2002). It is important to note that even though the first languages were mandated to play the role of languages of instruction, the African languages in particular were under resourced. For example, the literacy and other educational materials were very few, if any, compared to the tons of materials in English language. Therefore, in 1961, the colonial government, in response to the poor performance in Asian schools, implemented English as a language of instruction from grade one in Asian schools which spread very fast to all primary schools in Kenya including African schools (Mbaabu, 1996). So, for the remainder of the colonial period the language of instruction in all Kenyan schools was English. After independence in 1963, the colonial language policy was retained in postcolonial Kenya. When the first postcolonial Education Commission (i.e., the Ominde Commission) was appointed in 1964, it endorsed the English-only policy for the whole nation, from grade one onward (Republic of Kenya, 1964). This policy was revised in 1976 by the second postcolonial Education Commission (i.e., the Gachathi Report) which recommended that the predominant language of the school’s “catchment area” (i.e., the surrounding community) should be the language of instruction in grades one to three, and English should be the language of instruction from grade four onward for the entire nation (Republic of Kenya, 1976). This is still the operating language policy in Kenyan schools today (Republic of Kenya, 1999). English is the only official language of instruction from grade four and Swahili, the national and co-official language in the country, is compulsory and examinable from grade one. Swahili is the only indigenous language which is examinable in primary and secondary schools throughout the country. All the other indigenous languages are not examined. Therefore, Swahili and other indigenous languages continue to play a bridging role between home and school. Subtractive bilingualism is a common phenomenon in Kenyan schools. English voice thrives right from grade one to the end of the education cycle (Lisanza, 2011). In Kenya English is the authoritative voice (discourse) (Bakhtin, 1981). Bakhtin states that: The authoritative word demands that we acknowledge it, that we make it our own; it binds us, quite independent of any power it might have to persuade us internally; we encounter it with its authority already fused to it. The

4 

E. M. LISANZA

authoritative word is located in a distance zone, organically connected with a past that is felt to be hierarchically higher. (p. 342)

It appears that Bakhtin had the Kenyan case in his mind. The English language demands that Kenyans acknowledge it in all schools and other domains in the society to make it their own (Lisanza, 2011). It has socioeconomic power fused in it. Therefore, English is “the language” (Thiong’o, 1986, p. 11) in Kenya. This is the kind of ideological context in which Kenyan schools operate. English is superior compared to the indigenous languages. Due to this ideology, English language flourishes as the privileged voice in all Kenyan classrooms whether in urban or rural areas (Lisanza, 2011). It is in this ideological context that this project is situated. In the chapters to come we will see how the language policies which were initiated during colonial time impact the teaching and learning in the two case studies. Next, I will give a glimpse of the physical and social contexts of the two schools.

Mutituni and Nyika Primary Schools The study sites were two primary schools in Kenya. As mentioned, one was a rural school and the other an urban school. These schools will henceforth be referred to as Mutituni primary school and Nyika primary school. Mutituni was a rural school while Nyika was an urban school. The case studies were grade two classrooms in the two schools. The reason I chose grade two was because in my previous studies I have done observations in grade one classrooms and I was curious to see how children develop language and literacy as they move up the ladder of education. Mutituni primary school is located in Machakos county. Traditionally, the Kikamba speakers occupy this county. However, with towns and schools springing up in the county, there are also other language speakers. Given that the majority of the residents in this county speak Kikamba, then, this is a homogeneous Kikamba-speaking rural community. Most people are also competent in Swahili. However, English is hardly spoken in the community. In fact, during my stay in the community, I did not hear anyone speak in English at home or at the market. Although Kikamba was the main language of communication in the community, at school the children were forbidden to speak Kikamba. The languages of the school were Swahili and English.

1 INTRODUCTION 

5

As mentioned, my case at Mutituni primary school was a grade two classroom. This classroom had 39 children. Their ages ranged from seven to nine years. There were two female teachers in the classroom (Mrs. Tito and Mrs.  Kyeni). Mrs. Tito taught content courses (e.g., Math, Social Studies and Science) while Mrs. Kyeni taught languages and creative arts (e.g., Music and Physical Education (PE)). However, at no time were the two teachers in the classroom at the same time. Generally, the children stayed in the classroom throughout the day except during PE lessons and sometimes during science lessons when they went to the playground to do physical exercise or to observe nature. The classroom was crowded with desks but not as much as the grade one classroom I observed a few years ago (Lisanza, 2011). The teachers moved in and out of the room. The chalkboard was the main teaching aid in this classroom. Although there was a major shortage of literacy materials (e.g., storybooks), the teachers had somehow populated the classroom’s walls and ceiling with teacher-­ made charts. These charts had words/sentences, drawings and numbers from all subjects including Swahili. As will be discussed later, especially during their unofficial writing and sometimes during the official writing activities, the children relied on those familiar words which were displayed in the classroom. Nyika community is located in Nairobi county/city. Nairobi county borders Machakos county to the East. Nyika is a heterogeneous linguistic neighborhood. Different ethnic groups are found in the neighborhood. Nyika is an affluent neighborhood. The adult members in Nyika community owe their socioeconomic status to their education. The members get high incomes from their lucrative jobs in the civil service, nongovernmental organizations and businesses. At their homes and in the neighborhood, the languages of communication are Swahili and English. Thus, the children at Nyika are exposed to Swahili and English before joining school. As a matter of fact, for some of these children, English is considered their first language, while to the rest of them Swahili is considered their first language. Grade two classroom at Nyika primary school had 20 children whose ages ranged from seven to eight years. There was one female teacher in the classroom. The classroom was very spacious and rich with literacy materials (e.g., there were bookshelves at the back of the classroom full of storybooks and other educational materials). There were also teacher-made and commercial charts on the walls of the classroom. From time-to-time, these children also brought storybooks from their homes. Children moved out of the classroom during PE, Music, Drama, debate and so forth.

6 

E. M. LISANZA

Depending on differences in socioeconomic, sociocultural and linguistic diversity of students, schooling can be a very different experience for students. Looking at the two neighborhoods, it is obvious that children in Mutituni and Nyika communities grew up under different circumstances, and hence they accessed very different linguistic and other symbolic resources. For example, the children at Nyika had access to the linguistic capital, that is, English, which is the language of instruction and examination in Kenya, even before they joined school. They also had access to literacy materials (e.g., storybooks) and entertainment devices such as television sets where they watched children programs in English. Their stories and talk from time-to-time referenced English television programs. Their written stories were also based on the storybooks they read at home and at school. The children at Mutituni did not have literacy materials (e.g., storybooks) and entertainment resources (e.g., television sets). Nevertheless, they shared stories and wrote stories based on their daily experiences too. Finally, the educational atmosphere in both schools can be categorized as prescriptive, with nationally published syllabuses and teachers’ guides and a fundamental agenda of preparing students to pass the Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE). Hence, both schools were examination-driven. I now turn to a brief discussion on the sociocultural (i.e., Vygotskian) and dialogic (i.e., Bakhtinian) theoretical frameworks which will be followed by examination of the research design. Finally, I will engage with related scholarship.

Theoretical Framework: Sociocultural and Dialogic Sociocultural views of early literacy value culture, context and the role of interaction between children and adults (e.g., teachers) in literacy development (Razfar & Gutierrez, 2003). According to sociocultural theory, human mental functioning is essentially a facilitated process “that is organized by cultural artifacts, activities, and concepts.” Furthermore, “developmental processes take place through participation in cultural, linguistic, and historically formed settings such as … peer group interaction, and in institutional contexts like schooling” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 197). The sociocultural theory argues that the most crucial cognitive pursuit

1 INTRODUCTION 

7

develops through interaction within social and material environments. For example, in both schools, there were various interactions (both social and material) which took place in the classrooms. Teacher-students interactions dominated the classrooms. The students, especially at Nyika primary school (the urban school), interacted with different storybooks on daily basis. However, the students at Mutituni primary school (the rural school) did not have any reading books. The only materials available to them at school were textbooks and wall charts. Social and material interactions are fundamental for human mental functioning, as will be discussed later in this book. According to Vygotsky (1978), young children like the ones observed in both settings develop the capacity to regulate their own activities through linguistic means by participating in activities which are initially mediated by others. In other words, “Every psychological function appears twice, first between people on the interpsychological plane and then within the individual on the intrapsychological plane” (p. 57). In language classrooms like the two observed, learners use speech as a means of internalizing the linguistic features available in the classroom (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Therefore, it is important to have a supportive/rich language environment. Also, second language teachers have a huge responsibility to play in making sure that there are opportunities for different interactions in the classroom. These interactions range from teacher and students, student and student interactions to interaction with materials (print and multimedia). I totally agree with Lantolf and Thorne (2006) that in a language classroom “the relationship between language and development is not directly casual, but intentionally designed language environments (e.g., instructed second language settings) can stimulate qualitative developmental changes” (p. 207). Sociocultural theory seeks to comprehend how culturally situated meanings are created, recreated and transformed through social mediation (Englert, Mariage, & Dunsmore, 2001; Vygotsky, 1978). Higher psychological processes such as reading and writing have their origin in social practices that occur on an interpsychological plane, and that are mediated through talk, symbols, actions and objects (Vygotsky, 1978). Over time these processes are internalized, and the individual does not need any mediation anymore. Therefore, while individuals are accorded agency for their action, there is a social quality to all higher psychological practices (Englert et al., 2001).

8 

E. M. LISANZA

Brown and Palincsar (1989) building on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociogenesis, state that “change [cognitive growth] is more likely when one is required to explain, elaborate, or defend one’s position to others, as well as to oneself; striving for an explanation often makes a learner integrate and elaborate knowledge in new ways” (p. 395). As will be discussed, this was observed at the Nyika classroom where the learners were put to the task of narrating their experiences and knowledge. Moreover, successful language teaching requires knowing the “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978) of the students in order to offer meaningful instruction to all students. The zone of proximal development “is the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p.  86). According to Vygotsky, classroom language instruction should occur in the zone between the child’s independent level and the level at which he or she uses language when in dialogue with adults or capable peers. Thus, the zone of proximal development provides a strong explanation for the role of the adult (e.g., a teacher) in language and literacy development (Lisanza, 2011). In the Nyika classroom, and to some extent in the Mutituni classroom, it was observed that the teachers knew exactly what the students knew and were capable of doing with the teacher’s support as will be discussed later. Just like sociocultural theory, dialogic theory challenges the image of the solitary individual in language development. Meaning only occurs inside a dialogue (Bakhtin, 1981). As a matter of fact, Bakhtin (1981) states that “it is not, after all, out of a dictionary that a speaker gets his words! but rather it exists in other people’s mouths” (p. 294). Individuals are who they are through interacting with other people. According to the dialogic theory, all sense-making activities are situated in a given context. This is possible because we live in a world populated by others. Interaction does not only take place between individuals but also between an individual and text (Lisanza, 2014). This interaction is driven by the reader’s effort for understanding and hence creates meaning. “Only response understanding by humans provides texts with meaning. This points us away from texts as closed entities, but also from the individual as an information-­processing mechanism” (Linell, 2009, p. 13). As we will see in Chap. 5, the children at Nyika primary school interacted quite successfully with the storybooks they read. They made meaning out of the

1 INTRODUCTION 

9

s­torybooks they read, and they were able to write stories based on the stories they read. In Bakhtin’s view, when we use oral or written language, we enter into a dialogue with others, and we do so by adopting a social voice (Dyson, 1995). Bakhtin believed that meaning can become a reality “only when two or more voices come into contact: When the voice of a listener responds to the voice of a speaker” (Wertsch, 1991, p. 52). For example, in the studied classrooms, as we will see later, when the voice of the students (listeners) responded to the voice of the teacher (speaker) and vice versa, meaning was created in the classroom. Furthermore, in using language orally or written, we are not only interacting with other people but we are also borrowing other people’s words to represent our own meanings (Bakhtin, 1981). As Bakhtin stated, words come from “other people’s mouth, in other people’s contexts” (1981, p. 294). For example, in this project, the children borrowed the words of their teachers, their peers and authors in their spoken and written language. The appropriation of other people’s words and making them one’s own is what Hicks (2000) and other scholars refer to as agency. “Agency entails the ability to take the words of others and accent them in one’s unique way” (p. 240). As will be discussed later in the book, this is exactly what Nyika children did with their stories which were generally appropriated from the storybooks they read.

Research Design The research reported here was an ethnographic case study. As mentioned earlier, the study took place in two primary schools in Kenya in 2017–2018. My focus classrooms were grade two classrooms in both schools. In both schools I had focal children who I followed closely each day. They were all given pseudonyms. Also, the teachers in both schools were given pseudonyms. I spent two months in each school observing language learning and teaching during the official (teacher-controlled) and unofficial (children-­controlled) times. I observed all lessons each day from Monday to Friday. I observed English, Swahili, Math, Science, Social Studies, and Creative Arts. Although my aim was to analyze how children developed language and literacy in the two diverse settings, I also observed content lessons because I was interested in seeing how the national and local language policies were enacted in the two classrooms. I wrote down detailed

10 

E. M. LISANZA

field notes and audio-recorded all classroom interactions. I also carried out interviews with the teachers, parents and administrators and analyzed education documents (e.g., syllabuses, national language policy documents, teachers’ guides, etc.); however, the data reported here are only drawn from the classroom interactions during official and unofficial times and information from educational documents.

Related Scholarship in Early Childhood Literacy, Second Language and Bilingualism/Multilingualism This project is situated broadly in early childhood literacy, second language studies and bilingualism/multilingualism education. Therefore, in this subsection, I will engage briefly with the related scholarship from these fields. Children (e.g., the Mutituni and Nyika children) have differing experiences with written and spoken language but they all have experiences to bring to the table as “social players and symbol users” (Genishi & Dyson, 2009). The imaginative worlds that children build are embedded in their social world, and both play crucial roles in children’s writing development (Dyson, 1989). The children in both schools brought different experiences on paper and talk during official and unofficial times. They talked to each other and played with each other. Written Language and Other Symbolic Repertoires Children’s written language is often viewed as developing along a linear line from scribbles to readable texts. However, as Dyson (2003) observes, this linear order conceals the central function of children’s symbolic repertoires in their written language development. In the midst of these symbolic repertoires (e.g., singing, dancing, gesturing, drawing, speaking, etc.), a child finds a reason for using print (see Genishi & Dyson, 2009; Vygotsky, 1978), as will be discussed in Chap. 5. Despite many hours usually spent in schools writing, Katherine Samway (2006), who has done extensive work with English language learners in the United States, has observed that there is no authentic writing which is going on during official times in many second language classrooms (e.g., the two studied classrooms). Many hours are spent copying words and sentences off chalkboard or from a textbook or constructing of sentences from a word list or filling in blanks. She gives the meaning of authentic

1 INTRODUCTION 

11

writing as “the creation of an original text, no matter how complex or simple the message” (p. 22). Hence, Samway’s work plays a crucial role in rethinking the writing curricula of many second language classrooms such as the two classrooms reported here. In many African classroom settings (e.g., the two classrooms studied), the whole child’s symbolic repertoire is not utilized in the classroom. For example, Prinsloo and Stein (2004) carried out a study in four different centers in South Africa and observed that the teachers did not involve the whole of the child’s symbolic repertoires in his/her learning. For instance, an activity like singing was used to silence the pupils or used as a filler to transition from one classroom activity to another. South Africa is very similar to Kenya, given that both countries are African countries with colonial history, Prinsloo and Stein’s study was important in helping me understand what was going on in the two Kenyan classrooms. The diverse languages and “funds of knowledge” (e.g., riddle games, singing and storytelling) which bilingual and multilingual children bring to the classroom must be cherished not scorned (Moll, 2001). For example, the multilingual resources which Mutituni children brought to their school must be valued not punished, as we will see later in this book. Classroom Interactions During Reading Lessons Several studies (e.g., Alexander, 2000; Lisanza, 2011, 2014; Nystrand, 1997, 2006) show that reading comprehension is enriched by the classroom interactions of pupils with their teachers and peers. Classroom interactions can be dialogic or monologic (Lisanza, 2014; Nystrand, 2006). Dialogically organized instruction gives more conversational turns to the students than the teacher. A teacher is one of the voices among the classroom voices. Monologically organized classes’ mode of instruction is more of recitation and seatwork (Nystrand, 2006). As will be discussed later, the classroom interaction during reading at Nyika primary school was dialogic while at Mutituni primary school it was monologic most of the time. As will be discussed, the language of instruction was a barrier to active participation in the Mutituni classroom while in the Nyika classroom the language of instruction was not a barrier at all. Watts (1995) did a study which focused on vocabulary instruction during reading lessons in six urban classrooms in the United States. The prevalent classroom interaction patterns were Initiate-Response-Evaluate (I-R-E) and Teacher-Student-Teacher (Cazden, 2001; Mehan, 1979).

12 

E. M. LISANZA

The IRE discourse pattern involves the teacher asking a question to the students to which he/she usually knows the answer, and the students are expected to provide a brief but correct answer to the question. Then the teacher evaluates whether the response is correct or not. Each turn of interaction usually engages one student at a time with the teacher moving on to ask another student once she/he has evaluated the prior student (Cazden, 2001). Studies have shown that extended use of recitation limits students’ opportunities to expand their ideas because the teacher does most of the talking and more often controls the interaction instead of the students learning a lesson’s content (Acker & Hardman, 2001; Alexander, 2000; Cazden, 2001; Nystrand, 1997; Pontefract & Hardman, 2005). Pontefract and Hardman (2005) did a quantitative study that looked at the discourse of classrooms in English, Math and Science lessons in five urban and four rural primary schools in Kenya, where the teacher decided when the students were to participate and dominated most of the classroom talk. Furthermore, Bunyi (2001) observed grade one reading lessons in a rural classroom in Kenya where she reported that the teacher relied heavily on recitation. Some children were repeating after the teacher without looking at the text. In this classroom there was high paucity of literacy materials. This classroom is very similar to the one I observed (Lisanza, 2011) and also the current classroom at Mutituni. In 2011 I observed that the students in grade one read through recitation during English lessons. However, during Swahili lessons, the teacher went beyond recitation and students were given strategies for reading words. For example, they sounded out words (Lisanza, 2011, 2014). Just like Bunyi’s and Lisanza’s Kenyan classrooms, Arthur (2001) and Ndayipfukamiye (2001) did studies in Botswana and Burundi primary school classrooms, respectively. They observed that there was excessive use of recitation in these classrooms. These studies in Kenya (i.e., Bunyi’s study), Botswana and Burundi inform the current project given that the contexts are similar (i.e., postcolonial settings). However, the current project goes one step further to show what students were able to achieve during the unofficial times. Acker and Hardman (2001) looked at a sample of 102 lessons across English, Math and Science in primary schools in Kenya and reported that all lessons were largely characterized by transmissional forms of teaching. Acker and Hardman attribute the transmissional modes of classroom interactions to scarcity of teaching materials and poor physical facilities of classrooms. In Lisanza (2011), I observed the same challenges in the

1 INTRODUCTION 

13

Kenyan classroom I studied. However, besides the challenge of physical facilities and teaching resources, I observed that the English-only language policy at the school was also a major challenge for the pupils in rural areas and will be discussed later in this book. Therefore, it was not a surprise that the pupils read through recitation. Moreover, Juma and Ngome (1998) just like Acker and Hardman (2001) looked at a sample of 38 lessons across English, Math and Science in grades three and six in Kenya and found that the classroom interactions were marked by chorus class recitation, pupils copying from the chalkboard, among other practices. Juma and Ngome accredited such practices to poor teacher training and motivation, poor school management, lack of textbooks and related teaching and learning materials, overcrowded classrooms and the fact that teachers are constrained by the national examination for the Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE), which is narrow in what it tests. Hence, the pressure to cover the syllabus and other required material often led to the teachers overemploying teacher-directed methods at the expense of creating opportunities for students to be involved actively in their learning. However, just like Acker and Hardman’s (2001) study, this study did not acknowledge the language issue in the classrooms, especially in the rural classrooms. Translanguaging Practices in Bilingual/ Multilingual Classrooms Krause and Prinsloo (2016) report on an ethnographic case study done by Krause in a primary school in Cape Town, South Africa. The children came from a low socioeconomic neighborhood. Their home language was Isixhosa. The children had similar socioeconomic background as Mutituni children. Krause observed that although the national language policy dictated that the language of instruction was English, the teachers translanguaged between Isixhosa and English. This translanguaging was seen by the teachers as a resource to the students; however, the administration of the school blamed the teachers for this practice. This study was informative to the current project because as already stated, the rural children in the current study had similar backgrounds (both socioeconomic and linguistic diversity) as the South African children. Translanguaging has been used by teachers to mediate teaching of additional languages (Garcia & Lin, 2016). Garcia and Lin observe that:

14 

E. M. LISANZA

Although this practice has not been generally legitimized in language-­ teaching scholarship, teachers engage in code switching on a day-to-day basis. It is, however, when this linguistic behavior is used to teach language-­ minoritized students that this practice becomes extremely contested. (p. 2)

The Kenyan schools are no exception to what Garcia and Lin have observed. Translanguaging is a practice which is frowned at, and as a matter of fact, the two schools under discussion are not exceptional. The fear as Garcia and Lin observe is the fear of “contaminating” the national or official language. Even though translanguaging is frowned at in Kenya, many scholars (e.g., Arthur & Martin, 2006; Lin & Martin, 2005; Lisanza, 2011) have documented how teachers regularly translanguage to make meaning comprehensible to pupils when the language of instruction is a foreign or second language. Translanguaging challenges the divide that exists between the languages at the disposal of a multilingual speaker (Wei, 2018). As a matter of fact, translanguaging refers to using one language to reinforce the other in order to increase understanding and support the student’s activity in both languages (Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012a, 2012b). Translanguaging in the classroom involves multiple practices which multilingual speakers engage in so as to make sense of their multilingual world. Canagarajah (2001) who has done extensive work on codeswitching in Indian classrooms and society observes that codeswitching practices in Indian classrooms ascertain a subtle mode of resistance to the agenda of those who control language policy in both political and educational settings. As I observed in the Kenyan classrooms (Lisanza, 2011) and as will be discussed, translanguaging was a tool which was used by both the students (see the opening quote) and teachers to make meaning in the classroom despite the official language policies which did not support bilingualism or multilingualism. Let us now turn to the organization of the book.

Plan of the Book In Chap. 2, I examine the implication of official national language policies and the local language policies in each school during the teaching of content subjects. Then, in Chap. 3, I examine the reading curricula of both cases. In Chap. 4, I examine the enacted writing curricula. In Chap. 5, I turn to the children’s unofficial practices. I examine their talk, drawings

1 INTRODUCTION 

15

and stories. Finally, in Chap. 6, I consider the implications of this study for pedagogy, policy and theory. Join me in the next chapter as I discuss the enactment of the official language policies in the two classrooms.

References Acker, J., & Hardman, F. (2001). Classroom interaction in Kenyan primary schools. Compare, 31(2), 246–261. Alexander, R. J. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. UK: Blackwell Publishers. Arthur, J. (2001). Codeswitching and collusion: Classroom interaction in Botswana primary schools. In M. Heller & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 57–76). London: Ablex. Arthur, J., & Martin, P. (2006). Accomplishing lessons in postcolonial classrooms: Comparative perspectives from Botswana and Brunei Darussalam. Comparative Education, 42, 177–202. Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In C.  Emersion & M.  Holquist (Eds.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.  Bakhtin (pp.  259–422). Austin: University of Texas Press. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp.  393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bunyi, G. W. (2001). Language and education inequalities in Kenya. In M. Martin-­ Jones & M. Heller (Eds.), Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 77–100). London: Ablex. Canagarajah, S. (2001). Constructing hybrid postcolonial subjects: Codeswitching in Jaffna classrooms. In M. Martin-Jones & M. Heller (Eds.), Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 193–212). London: Ablex. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M. (1975). What did I write? Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann. Dyson, A. H. (1989). Multiple worlds of child writers: Friends learning to write. New York: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A.  H. (1995). Writing children: Reinventing the development of childhood literacy. Written Communication, 12(1), 4–46. Dyson, A. H. (2003). The brothers and sisters learn to write: Popular literacies in childhood and school cultures. New York: Teachers College Press. Englert, C., Mariage, T., & Dunsmore, K. (2001 [2006]). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In C.  A. MacArthur, S.  Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research. New York: Guilford Press.

16 

E. M. LISANZA

Garcia, O., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Translanguaging in bilingual education. In O. Gracia et al. (Eds.), Bilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 1–14). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Genishi, C., & Dyson, A. (2009). Children, language, & literacy: Diverse learners in diverse times. New York: Teachers College Press. Hicks, D. (2000). Self and other in Bakhtin’s early philosophical essays: Prelude to a theory of prose consciousness. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7, 227–242. Juma, M. N., & Ngome, C. K. (1998). Classroom practice and teacher motivation in primary schools in Kenya. Kenya: Educational Foundation Department, Kenyatta University. Krause, L., & Prinsloo, M. (2016). Translanguaging in a township primary school: Policy and practice. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34(4), 347–357. Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. Vanpatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012a). Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655–670. Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012b). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641–654. Lin, A., & Martin, P. (Eds.). (2005). Decolonisation, globalization: Language in education policy and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Linell, P. (2009). With respect to Bakhtin: Some trends in contemporary dialogic theories. Retrieved from https://www.ipkl.gu.se/digitalAssets/1475/ 1475837_143-bakhtin-sthlm-2009.pdf Lisanza, E. M. (2011). What does it mean to learn oral and written English language: A case study of a rural Kenyan classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL. Lisanza, E. M. (2014). Dialogic instruction and learning: The case of one Kiswahili classroom. Language, Culture, & Curriculum, 27, 121–135. Mbaabu, I. (1996). Language policy in East Africa. Nairobi: Educational Research and Publication. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Moll, L. (2001). The diversity of schooling: A cultural-historical approach. In M.  Dela Luz Reyes & J.  J. Halcon (Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students (pp.  13–28). New  York: Teachers College Press. Muthwii, M. (2002). Language policy and practices in education in Kenya and Uganda. Nairobi: Phoenix.

1 INTRODUCTION 

17

Ndayipfukamiye, L. (2001). The contradictions of teaching bilingually in postcolonial Burundi: From Nyakatsi to Maisons en Etages. In Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 101–116). London: Ablex. Nystrand, M. (1997). Dialogic instruction: When recitation becomes conversation. In M. Nystrand et al. (Eds.), Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom (pp. 1–29). NY: Teachers College Press. Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 292–411. Pontefract, C., & Hardman, F. (2005). The discourse of classroom interaction in Kenyan primary schools. Comparative Education, 41(1), 87–106. Prinsloo, M., & Stein, P. (2004). What’s inside the box? Children’s early encounters with literacy in South Africa classrooms. Perspectives in Education, 22(2), 67–84. Razfar, A., & Gutierrez, K. (2003). Reconceptualizing early childhood literacy: The sociocultural influence. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 34–48). London: Sage. Republic of Kenya. (1964). Kenya Education Commission report part 1 (Ominde report). Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (1976). Report of the national committee on educational objectives and policies (The Gachathi report). Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (1999). Totally integrated quality education and training: Report of the commission inquiry into the system of Kenya (Koech report). Nairobi: Government Printer. Sahni, U. (2001). Children appropriating literacy: Empowerment pedagogy from young children’s perspectives. In B. Comber & A. Simpson (Eds.), Negotiating critical literacies in classroom (pp. 19–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Samway, K. (2006). When English language learners write: Connecting research to practice, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Sifuna, D.  N. (1980). Short essays on education in Kenya. Nairobi: Kenya Literature Bureau. Thiong’o, N. (1986). Decolonising the mind: The politics of language in African literature. Nairobi: Heinemann. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Watts, S. (1995). Vocabulary instruction during reading lessons in six classrooms. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(3), 399–424. Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging and code-switching: What’s the difference? Retrieved from https://blog.oup.com/2018/05/translanguaging-codeswitching-difference/ Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

CHAPTER 2

The Enactment of Official Language Policies in Mutituni and Nyika Primary Schools: Their Impact on Learning

As we have seen in Chap. 1, the Kenyan national language policy states that from grade one to grade three the language of instruction should be the child’s home language in linguistically homogeneous settings. We have also seen that in both schools the language of instruction is English from grade one and above. Hence, given that Mutituni is a linguistically homogenous setting, there seem to be a mismatch in the official national language policy and the local language policy. Thus, in this chapter, I consider the implications of the official national language policy and the local language policies of each school because these national and school-driven policies theoretically determine pupils’ and teachers’ experiences in schools. So, the main issue being investigated in this chapter is the outcome of this mismatch to language and literacy development across the curriculum for Kenyan children, especially the rural children. Kenya is a postcolonial society. It gained its independence from the British in 1963. Even though the British are long gone, their presence is felt in Kenya through the language they left behind. Since independence, English has remained one of the official languages in Kenya. Swahili is both national and one of the official languages in the country. As mentioned earlier, English is the medium of instruction all over the nation from grade four. As a matter of fact, in most of the urban schools, like Nyika primary school, and in some rural schools, such as Mutituni, the language of instruction is English right from grade one. © The Author(s) 2020 E. M. Lisanza, The Multivoices of Kenyan Primary School Children Learning to Read and Write, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38110-3_2

19

20 

E. M. LISANZA

Furthermore, English is the language of all content subjects from grade one. It is also the language of examination for the content subjects. All the indigenous languages (e.g., Kikamba, the first language of Mutituni children) apart from Swahili have been accorded very minimal roles in education. The sign below (Fig.  2.1) was posted on a tree at Mutituni primary school. As already mentioned, Mutituni is a Kikamba-speaking community, and therefore according to the national education language policy, the language of instruction in grades one to three should be Kikamba, the language of the surrounding community. Logically, if the language of instruction is supposed to be Kikamba, then the language of communication among students should also be Kikamba. However, this was not the case at the school. The language of instruction from grade one was English. Swahili was the language of communication among the pupils. Kikamba was prohibited within the school compound. Figure 2.1 sums it all. English is the language of the school. It is also obvious that English is the prestigious linguistic code in the school. This sign is a constant reminder to the students as they walk on the corridors of the school that they should communicate in English. Even though Swahili is one of the languages of the school, there is no such sign to remind the students to speak it as well. To understand the enactment of the language policy at Mutituni and Nyika primary schools, I will provide illustrations from four major s­ ubjects: Math, Science, Social Studies and Swahili. The enactment of official language policies during English lessons will be discussed in Chaps. 3 and 4.

Fig. 2.1  “Speak English” sign

2  THE ENACTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICIES IN MUTITUNI… 

21

Before we enter the classrooms, I would like to mention that given that Kenya is a multilingual society, translanguaging is a common practice in the society and the schools seem not to be spared either from this practice. “Translanguaging is the process of making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understanding and knowledge through the use of languages” (Baker, 2011, p. 288). Hence, bilingual or multilingual speakers use the languages at their disposal to maximize understanding and performance in schools and beyond. Additionally, Garcia (2011) acknowledges that translanguaging is more than codeswitching and translation. It is a means to enhance students’ language, literacy and cognitive abilities: Translanguaging includes code-switching, the shift between two languages in context, and it also includes translation; however it differs from both of these simple practices in that it refers to the process by which bilingual students perform bilingually in the myriad ways of classrooms…Translanguaging is not only a way to “scaffold” instruction, to make sense of learning and language; rather, translanguaging is part of the metadiscursive regimes that students in the twenty-first century must perform…. (p. 147)

Thus, translanguaging is a skill which the students and teacher must have. As Canagarajah (2001) observes, translanguaging “is clearly a communicative resource of considerable social value … and learners who develop this form of communicative competence accrue particular advantages in their lives and outside school” (p. 208). In Mutituni and Nyika classrooms translanguaging was utilized by both the students and teachers as a resource to make meaning even though it is a practice which is not embraced in the Kenyan educational settings (Lisanza, 2011) and elsewhere, just as Creese and Blackledge (2010) observe that translanguaging is “rarely institutionally endorsed or pedagogically underpinned” (p. 105). As has been observed in many multilingual settings (e.g., Chick, 1996; Hornberger & Chick, 2001; Martin-Jones & Heller, 1996), translanguaging “scaffolds knowledge building, … [it] bridge[s] the gap between the knowledge acquired through the medium of the first language(s) and the knowledge of the school mediated through … the language of instruction” (Martin-Jones & Heller, 1996, p. 9). Therefore, translanguaging is a norm in most bilingual and multilingual classrooms. The two classrooms under discussion are no exception to this norm.

22 

E. M. LISANZA

Official Language Policy at Mutituni Primary School The enactment of the English-only language policy at Mutituni primary school is well exemplified during the following Math lesson. Before the following Math lesson, the children had just completed an English lesson and the teacher had left the classroom. While the pupils were waiting for the next teacher to come in, they started speaking to each other at the top of their voices. They were speaking in Swahili. Since the focus of this chapter is the enactment of the official language policy in the classroom, we will examine interactions in the classroom to see how the language policy was enacted as the teacher interacted with her pupils. Classroom interactions have been investigated by several scholars (e.g., Cazden, 2001; Freebody, 2013; Mehan, 1979; Nystrand, 1997, 2006; O’Connor & Michaels, 2017; Wells, 1993) who have found that instruction and learning takes place during classroom interactions. These scholars have also observed that in many world classrooms, the dominant form of teacher-led classroom talk is recitation. Recitation is also referred to as IRE or IRF; the teacher Initiates a question, a student Responds (in most cases briefly) and the teacher Evaluates the student’s response as correct or wrong, or the teacher gives Feedback. The two classrooms in this project are no exception, the default classroom interaction pattern was IRE. However, in the Nyika classroom, it was not only the teacher asking questions but the students as well. In this case the IRE interaction pattern was “disrupted.” The IRE cycle is well illustrated in Extract 1 in which the grade two classroom at Mutituni primary school is working on number patterns. The teacher is asking questions and also writing number patterns on the board and the students are giving answers, and sometimes they are requested to write their responses on the chalkboard. The teacher is conducting the entire lesson from the front of the classroom. The students are crowded into many wooden desks, arranged in rows facing the blackboard. The teacher is making considerable use of the chalk and blackboard. Please see Appendix A for transcription conventions. Please note that the students’ names used in all the extracts are pseudonyms. Extract 1 Math Lesson in Mutituni 01 SS: [Children are speaking at the top of their voices in Swahili] 02 T: [Walks in the classroom silently and speaks in Kikamba] Yo niukulya alii yo kelele usu winaw’o ni waki? (I have a question for you, why are you making noise?)

2  THE ENACTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICIES IN MUTITUNI… 

03 SS: 04 T:

23

[Silence] It is Math time. What number comes before one hundred and seventeen? 05 SS: [A few students raise their hands up] 06 T: Kioko 07 Ki: One hundred and fifteen. 08 T: Wrong. Mueni 09 Mu: One hundred and six. 10 T: Very good. Come and write on the blackboard. 11 Mu: [Writes] 116. 12 T: Clap for her. 13 SS: [Clap] 14 T: What number comes after one hundred and seventeen? 15 SS: [A few students raise their hands up] 16 T: Mwende 17 Mwe: One hundred and eighteen. 18 T: Very good. Come and write on the board. 19 Mwe: [Writes] 118 20 T: Look everybody, I have [writes] 102, 105, _____ 111. Look at these numbers; what number is missing? Let’s count. 21 SS: One hundred and two, One hundred and three, One hundred and four, One hundred and five [quiet]. 22 T: What is the next number? Count by three. 23 SS: [Some students raise their hands up]. 24 T: Kioko 25 Ki: One hundred and eight. 26 T: Very good. One hundred and? 27 SS: Eight. 28 T: [Speaks in Swahili] Amesema? (what did he say?) 29 SS: One hundred and eight. 30 T: Let’s start counting from one hundred and two [pointing with a stick]. 31 SS: One hundred and two, One hundred and five, One hundred and eight, One hundred and eleven. 32 T: That’s counting forward by 3. [She writes the following numbers on the board] 120, 116, ________, 108. Tell me, are we counting forward or backward? 33 SS: [Some answer and others are quiet] Backward

24 

E. M. LISANZA

34 T: Backward, what is the answer? 35 SS: [Some raising their hands up] 36 T: Nyota 37 Nyo: One hundred and twelve. 38 T: Very good. Clap for Nyota. 39 SS: [Clap] [In conclusion, the teacher writes a practice exercise on the board]. Turns 04–08 show the IRE interaction pattern: in turn 04 the teacher asks a question and in turn 06 nominates a student to respond to her question, in turn 07 the student responds and in turn 08 the teacher evaluates the answer as wrong. The teacher does not provide any support to Kioko and immediately starts a new cycle by nominating another student in the same turn (i.e., turn 8). Note that the teacher does not repeat the question. In 09 Mueni gives an answer which is evaluated by the teacher in turn 10 as correct by remarking “Very good” and asking Mueni to write the answer on the blackboard. To close the cycle the teacher instructs students to clap for Mueni (see turn 12). A new cycle starts from turns 14–19. In turn 20 the teacher calls the attention of all the students and asks them what number is missing in the pattern and immediately instructs them to count. All the students count and keep quiet at the blank slot. In turn 22 she rephrases the question which she had asked in turn 20 and instructs the pupils to count by three. Even with this instruction, only a few hands are raised up. The teacher nominates Kioko whose hand was up. Remember Kioko had missed a question earlier (see 07); I interpreted the opportunity given to him to answer the question was for the teacher to confirm if he had understood the concept of adding by threes. In turn 25 Kioko answers and in turn 26 the teacher evaluates his answer as correct and repeats the answer given by Kioko halfway expecting the students to complete the answer. In turn 27 students answer in unison. In turn 28 the teacher asks in Swahili what Kioko had said. Note from turns 04–27, the language of instruction has been only in English which is according to the official language policy of the school. So, in turn 28 the teacher switches to Swahili; however, the students do not respond in Swahili but in English in turn 29. In turn 30 the teacher switches back to the official language of instruction. In turn 30 this is not an initiation of a question, but the teacher is ­instructing the students to count. In turn 31 the students are counting in unison. Therefore, the IRE cycle is two parts only: Initiation and Response.

2  THE ENACTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICIES IN MUTITUNI… 

25

From turns 26–34, this is a whole class instruction, with turn 32 the teacher repeating a mathematical concept which she had mentioned earlier in turn 22, thus emphasizing the point to the students that to get the pattern right, they have to count by three. From turns 34–39 is the typical IRE three cycle: in turn 34 the teacher asks a question, in turn 36 she nominates Nyota to answer, Nyota responds in turn 37, and in turn 38 the teacher evaluates the answer as correct and instructs the whole class to clap for Nyota. So, we can note that the language of instruction in this classroom during this Math lesson is predominantly English apart from one time when the teacher switched to Swahili. Kikamba, the first language of most of the children in the classroom did not appear anywhere during the instruction and learning. It only appeared when the teacher walked in the classroom, however, the lesson had not yet started. Kikamba, in this particular instance, was used by the teacher for discipline purposes but not for instruction. Also, the predominant interaction pattern in this lesson is the Initiate-­ Response-­Evaluate (IRE) pattern which was at times truncated by the teacher instructing mathematical concepts and by students clapping and writing on the blackboard. I interpreted the writing on board as part of the evaluation turn by the teacher. However, one shortcoming of the strict usage of IRE interaction pattern in this classroom, as has been observed elsewhere (e.g., Cazden, 2001), is that it gives no room for students to elaborate on their answers. For example, when Kioko gave a wrong answer, the teacher did not give him room to explain how he arrived at the answer and more importantly help him. Neither did the students who got the answers correct get an opportunity to explain how they arrived at those answers. Given the fact that one of the major shortcomings of recitation is that students are not required to explain their responses, at face value it seems that a good number of students understood what was going on in this Math lesson. However, when it came to Science and Social Studies lessons, the language use became more complex because the students were expected to produce language not just numbers. In Extract 2 the students are learning about light and shadow formation in Science. They are on the playground. Before this lesson, the class had learned about some of the sources of light (e.g., the sun, oil lamp, electricity, etc.). In this lesson the teacher attempts to use the typical IRE pattern of interaction but only few students respond to the questions. Apparently in this classroom, the teacher did not force students to respond to the questions unless their

26 

E. M. LISANZA

hands were raised. This is different from what has been observed in some classrooms where the teacher calls upon students to answer the questions even if their hands are not raised (e.g., see Freebody, 2013). The reluctance of students to answer questions was associated with language policy as an impediment to students’ participation and learning. Extract 2 Science Lesson in Mutituni 01 T: What forms a shadow? What produces a shadow? 02 SS: [A few students’ hands are up]. 03 T: Ndunge 04 Ndu: [a] book 05 T: What else? Kyalo 06 Kya: [Says in Swahili] Kijiti (a stick) 07 T: A stick. Why do we see shadows? Why are all those things forming shadows? 08 SS: [Quite] 09 T: A shadow is formed because the light gets blocked. Go to your own spot. [Speaks in Swahili] Jua liko upande gani? (The sun is on which side?) 10 SS: [They all point to the West] 11 T: [Points to her shadow] There is this thing we call a shadow. How does a shadow look like? 12 SS: [Some students respond to the teacher while others are quiet] Like your body. 13 T: [Speaks in Swahili and English] Hebu nionyeshe (show me) your shadow and say, “This is my shadow.” 14 SS: [They say while pointing] This is my shadow. 15 T: Can I leave my shadow? 16 SS: [Quiet] 17 T: [Speaks in Swahili] Mimi naweza kuacha kivuli changu? (Can I leave my shadow?) 18 SS: No. [The lesson continued in the same format] Turns 01–05 shows truncated IRE cycle, where in turn 05 the teacher does not evaluate the response given by the student literally but the fact that she asks, “What else?” is an indication that the answer given previously was correct. She nominates a student to answer the question in the same turn (i.e., turn 05). In turn 06 the student responds in Swahili. In

2  THE ENACTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICIES IN MUTITUNI… 

27

turn 07 the teacher repeats the answer in English, thus evaluating the answer as correct. In the same turn (07), she starts another cycle by asking a question in English. No more hands are up (see turn 08). In turn 09 she answers her own question. This is a clear signal to the teacher that the pupils do not understand what is going on in the lesson. Hence, in the same turn she switches from English to Swahili and starts another cycle by asking the students where the sun was. This switch breaks the language barrier, and in turn 10 all the students respond to her question by pointing to the direction of the sun. Showing that they understood the Swahili question. From turns 09 to 18 the oral participation is now characterized by a pattern of teacher prompt and choral response from the pupils (i.e., IR). With choral responses, it is challenging to determine if the pupils are learning the content or not. My interpretation was that if the teacher had not translanguaged to Swahili for example in turns 09, 13 and 17, even the choral responses would not have been given (see turns 08 and 16). Hence, translanguaging was used as a facilitating tool to help the pupils understand the content. Even though in turn 17 the teacher asks a question in Swahili, in turn 18 students respond chorally in English. My interpretation was that it is hard to predict what language a multilingual speaker will use because languages are tools at his/her disposal and therefore he/ she can use whichever tool he/she wishes to use so long as it accomplishes the task at hand. However, it seems these children have internalized in their minds not to use Kikamba in responding to the teacher. This tool was rarely used to accomplish any task in the classroom by the children. Extract 2 indicates how the language of instruction can impede learning and active participation of pupils in their learning process. Although the teacher encouraged students to participate in the lesson, there was no question that there was a language barrier. The class was overwhelmingly quiet and passive. This turned out to be a teacher-centered classroom because of the English-only policy of the school. If the school had followed the national language policy, the teacher and the students would be speaking in Kikamba in their classroom. Nevertheless, although the school language policy states that the language of instruction should be English, here a teacher has to make a choice—to make learning meaningful or to follow the language policy strictly and leave most of the students in darkness as was observed in the Peruvian classroom (see Hornberger & Chick, 2001). This is why whenever the teacher sensed the students did not understand what she was saying, she translanguaged from English to Swahili. For example, in turns 09, 13 and 17 the teacher translanguages

28 

E. M. LISANZA

from English to Swahili to make the language of instruction comprehensible to the students. However, as Garcia and Wei (2014) observed, “translanguaging goes against the grain of the kind of language use that many expect from students and teachers” (p. 124). So, the fact that both the teacher and her students are translanguaging, this shows that they have agency in this classroom. They have broken “the artificial and ideological divides” (Wei, 2018, p. 15) between English and Swahili. Even though in content classes the students were not very active due to the language barrier, during Swahili lessons the classroom atmosphere was very different. The students seemed to be different students altogether. My analysis was that the language of instruction plays a major role in the classroom interactions and talk. Let us join the teacher and her pupils as they cover “Vitendawili” (Riddles). Riddles are “funds of knowledge” (Moll, 2001, p. 17) virtually in all communities in Kenya. The children get exposed to riddles from home. Therefore, the use of riddles in this classroom bridges the gap between the school and the children’s home. Extract 3 Swahili Lesson in Mutituni 01 T: Kitendawili! (Riddle)! 02 SS: Tega! (Ready!) 03 T: Nyumba yangu haina mlango. (My house has no door). 04 SS: [Calling out loudly] Teacher! Teacher! 05 T: Wote (All) 06 SS: Yai (an egg) 07 T: Nani atatupatia kitendawili? (Who will give us a riddle?) 08 SS: Teacher! Teacher! 09 T: Kanze 10 Ka: Nyumba yangu haina dirisha. (My house has no window.) 11 S1: Upepo (wind) 12 Ka: Amenoa (Wrong) 13 S2: Yai (An egg) 14 Ka: Amepata (Right) 15 T: Nani atatupatia kitendawili kingine? (Who will give us another riddle?) 16 SS: Teacher! Teacher! 17 T: [Calls one of the children] 18 S3: Kitendawili! (Riddle!) 19 SS: Tega! (Ready!) 20 S3: Askari mlangoni. (A soldier at the door).

2  THE ENACTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICIES IN MUTITUNI… 

29

21 SS: Mimi! Mimi! (Me! Me!) 22 S3: [Points to one of the students] 23 S4: Kamasi (mucus) 24 S3: Amekosea (Wrong) 25 S5: Kufuli (Lock) 26 S3: Amepata (Correct) [The lesson continued in the same vigor]. Turns 01 and 02 are beginnings of riddles. This extract could be divided into two major parts. Part 1 (i.e., from turns 03–06) is teacher controlled, while part 2 (i.e., from turns 09 to 26) is student controlled. Thus, from turns 03 to 06, this is a teacher-students interaction, while from turns 09 to 14 and from 18 to 26 the students are interacting with each other. In turns 07 and 15 the teacher releases initiation of questions to students and in turns 12, 14, 24 and 26 the students have been given the power by their teacher to evaluate the responses of their peers. Even though this lesson was predominantly IRE, the students were the ones who initiated the questions, responded and evaluated. They have been given a voice and actually the students got more turns to speak than the teacher. Therefore, we note that when students’ funds of knowledge are integrated in the classroom it empowers the students. Also, when the language of the classroom is in a language a child understands, this promotes learning and active participation in the classroom. Swahili to these students was next to nature just like English was to the Nyika children. The students are actively involved in the Swahili lesson because the language of instruction is not a barrier. Every student wants to participate. The students are not quiet anymore as we have seen with the Science lesson on shadow formation. As a matter of fact, they are playing with the language and at the same time their imagination is at its peak. Also, it is important to note that this is a learner-centered lesson which is very different from the Science and Math lessons which were teacher-centered. Thus, the Swahili and Science lessons are a good illustration of how a language of instruction can hinder learning or promote it. In the case of Science, the language of instruction was meant to be English; however, majority of the students could not understand the language, and this is why they could not answer the teacher’s questions which were in English until when the teacher translanguaged from English to Swahili. In the Swahili language class, the language of instruction was Swahili, and because these students spoke Swahili as a second language before they joined school, the

30 

E. M. LISANZA

language of instruction was a resource which they had at their disposal. Therefore, the language of instruction does not exclude them from learning. Let us now turn to Nyika primary school and see how the national language policy was enacted during the classroom interactions.

Official Language Policy at Nyika Primary School The language policy at Nyika primary school was more or less like that at Mutituni primary school. English was the language of instruction from pre-school. English and Swahili were the languages of communication among the children. However, by default children communicated with each other more in English than Swahili. Since Nyika neighborhood was linguistically heterogenous, the language policy was in line with the national language policy. As mentioned earlier, for some of the Nyika children, English was their first language. To illustrate on the language use at Nyika primary school, let us join grade two students with their teacher as they learn about the days of the week and months of the year in a Math lesson. The predominant interaction pattern in Extract 4 is the IRE pattern. Also, the language of instruction is English only during the lesson. The teacher generally moved around the classroom as she instructed. The students were seated on wooden desks, arranged in rows facing the blackboard. There was plenty of room to maneuver around. Extract 4 Math Lesson in Nyika Primary School 01 T: Which are the days of the week? 02 SS: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. 03 T: How many months are there in a year? 04 SS: Twelve 05 T: What is the first month of the year? 06 SS: [Raise hands while others call out] Teacher! Teacher! 07 T: Kalu 08 Ka: January 09 T: Very good. What is the second month of the year? 10 SS: [Raising hands] 11 T: Subira 12 Su: February 13 T: Good. What is the third month of the year? 14 SS: [Raising hands, some calling out] Teacher! Teacher!

2  THE ENACTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICIES IN MUTITUNI… 

31

15 T: 16 SS: 17

Everybody March [The same format is followed till the 12th month. After which the teacher says] 18 T: Name all the 12 months of the year. 19 SS: [They all recite the months of the year in unison] 20 T: Repeat 21 SS: [They chorally name all the months of the year from January to December] 22 T: Very good. Clap for yourself 23 SS: [Clap] 24 T: Which is the first month of the year? 25 SS: [In unison]: January 26 T: Which is the last month of the year? 27 SS: December 28 T: A month has certain days. January has thirty-one days. February has how many days? 29 SS: [Raise their hands] 30 T: Yusufu 31 Yu: Twenty-eight or twenty-nine. 32 T: Very good. [The lesson continues with the teacher asking how many days are in each month with different students being called out to give their answers]. Turns 05–09, 09–13 and 28–32 show the IRE pattern where the teacher nominates a single student to respond to a question and then she evaluates the response. However, in turns 01–04, 13–16, 18–22, 24–25 and 26–27 it is not just one student being nominated to answer the question, but the whole class. Whole class responses are choral in nature. When it is a choral response, the IRE pattern is generally truncated into two parts: IR with the last turn (R) being presumed to be evaluated positive; however, in turn 22 the teacher evaluates the pupils by praising them and instructing them to clap for themselves. The choral responses served an “academic function” (Hornberger & Chick, 2001, p. 34) where students are giving new information (see turns 02, 04, 16, 25 & 27). The students are not chorally repeating what the teacher has uttered as in “safetalk” (Hornberger & Chick, 2001, p. 42). The students in this Math lesson are very active. The students are raising up their hands or calling upon the teacher to be given an opportunity

32 

E. M. LISANZA

to answer the question. This lesson is more or less like the Swahili lesson we saw in Mutituni primary school. The students are involved in their learning, even though we do not see student-to-student interactions as we saw with the Swahili lesson, nevertheless, the students are active participants in the classroom. There is no question that these students were familiar with the months of the year and hence the teacher tapped into their prior knowledge. However, even with prior knowledge, students may not be able to actively participate in the classroom if the language of instruction is foreign to them. For example, in the lesson on shadow formation which we saw at Mutituni primary school, there is no question that the children had seen shadows before and possibly they knew what causes shadow formation, but because the language of instruction was not part of their linguistic repertoire, class participation was minimal unless the teacher translanguaged to Swahili. Contrary to the students in the Science lesson, the students in the above Math lesson are very comfortable with the language of instruction. Hence, they are eager to participate in the lesson. Although sometimes, as we will see in the next extract, the teacher in this classroom translanguaged from English to Swahili, it was not because of the language barrier but because Swahili was in the linguistic repertoire of both the teacher and the students. For example, in the following Social Studies lesson which is about the role of the local leaders in the community, the teacher and the students are translanguaging between English and Swahili not because the students do not understand English but simply because the students and the teacher are bilingual speakers. Hence, this translanguaging practice goes contrary to the school’s language policy and the national language policy. But, as mentioned, translanguaging practices are in line with the societal language practices (see Canagarajah, 2001). Given that this lesson was about the roles of the local leaders, I analyzed this lesson as bridging the gap between the community and the school. Extract 5 Social Studies Lesson in Nyika [T Writes the following questions on blackboard] . Who is the head of a location? 1 2. Who is the head of a sub-location? 3. Who is the head of a village? 01 T:

We are going to talk about the roles of these leaders. [Then she switches to Swahili] Kazi yao ni nini? [What’s their work?] Ukienda ushago ndio utasikia [When you travel upcountry that’s when you hear about] villages.

2  THE ENACTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICIES IN MUTITUNI… 

33

02 Kalu:

[Speaks in Swahili and English] Kwani [Do you mean] people in ushago [upcountry] speak English? 03 SS: [Some]: Yes. 04 Rehema: My grandfather speaks to me in English. 05 Yusufu: Even my grandmother speaks to me in English. 06 T: Well. The role of the chief is to keep peace. Also, he talks in Barazas (open air meetings). 07 Kalu: When I was walking around, I saw two people fighting and they had blood over here (pointing at his forehead). 08 Kip: A bus of another school was moving and hit someone on the forehead. 09 T: That is an accident. Now the two people who were fighting which … [Name deleted, referring to Kalu] mentioned, would have been taken to the chief to settle down their differences and apologize to each other. 10 Kalu: Excuse me teacher. There is a small jail for small people. 11 T: There is no jail for young people because they do not have IDs. 12 Juma: Who is the chief of this location? 13 T: I will give you the name later. The chief addresses the people in the location. And the sub-chief maintains law and order. He also guides the youth. Who are the youth? 14 Subira: Youth are people who are under eighteen years and are not married. 15 T: Right. Youth don’t know anything. [Says in Swahili] Hawajui mambo [They know nothing]. They are taught how to respect parents. 16 Subira: [Surprised] They don’t know how to respect parents? 17 T: Some don’t know. In this lesson, the pupils are being taught about civic duties and responsibilities of the chiefs and sub chiefs. This information is important beyond the classroom’s interactions and tests. The children will grow up knowing where to go for help in case they need it. Furthermore, the children are actively involved in the lesson and are volunteering information even without the teacher asking them. For instance, in turn 07 Kalu remembers the two people he saw fighting and in turn 08 Kip remembers the bus accident he saw. This lesson was an opportunity for the children to report on some of the social evils they had witnessed in their neighborhood. Although the

34 

E. M. LISANZA

language policy of the school was English only, the teacher and to some degree the students were able to make use of their multilingual abilities. They used both Swahili (see turns 01, 02, 06 and 15) and English. However, English dominated the classroom conversation. Hence, even though the school and national language policies dictate that the language of instruction is English only, the teacher and her students translanguage between English and Swahili, treating these two different languages that form their linguistic repertoire as one integrated system that helps them to communicate, enhance their understanding and create new ways of speaking (Bagwasi, 2017). Through translanguaging, the teacher and her students have agency in their learning just as we saw in the Mutituni classroom. As can be noted in this lesson, the traditional IRE pattern which is usually teacher-students interaction has been taken over by student-student interaction. In turns 02–05 the students are speaking to each other. For example, the teacher does not even answer Kalu’s question in 02, but other pupils do. The teacher in this classroom encouraged her students to participate actively in classroom conversations. This is why in turns 02 to 05 even though the students are talking about the use of English at home, the teacher does not silence them, she smoothly enters the conversation by saying, “well” in turn 06 and continues with her lesson without losing the focus/objective of the lesson, which was to talk about the roles of the local leaders. In turn 06 she gives two of the roles of the chief and in turns 07 and 08 the students enter the conversation once again of which she connects the students’ stories with the day’s lesson by giving more roles of the chief in turn 09. In turn 10 Kalu provides information about a “small jail for small people” meaning there is a juvenile jail. The teacher informs Kalu that in Kenya there are no juvenile jails. In turn 12 Juma asks the teacher a question. This is another “disruption” of IRE pattern where only the teacher asks questions. However, the teacher promises to give the answer later (see turn 13). In the same turn the teacher continues with instruction where she gives students more roles of the chief and the sub chief. Also, in turn 13 she initiates a question about who the youth are, and in turn 14 Subira gives the answer promptly without waiting to be nominated by the teacher to answer the question. In turn 15 the teacher evaluates Subira’s response as “right” and continues to talk more about the youth. In particular, she states that the youth “don’t know anything and they are taught how to respect parents.” This really surprises Subira who “disrupts” the traditional classroom interaction pattern where the teacher asks questions by asking the teacher in turn 16, “They don’t know how to respect par-

2  THE ENACTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICIES IN MUTITUNI… 

35

ents?” This was a cultural shock to Subira because in Kenya every child knows parents have to be respected. However, the teacher in turn 17 assures Subira that some of the young people do not know that they have to respect their parents, and therefore this is one of the duties of a sub chief to let them know. Nevertheless, I would say that the sub chief simply emphasizes the importance of respecting parents in the Kenyan culture. The questions raised by Kalu, Juma and Subira in turns 02, 12 and 16, respectively, show how these children have agency in their learning. Agency is a “feeling that we are able to act in the world” (Comber, 2016, p.  120) and question. These children do not let anything go unquestioned. It is not only the teacher asking questions but the students as well. They own their learning. This is contrary to the regular recitation lessons which we have seen so far. The teacher ensured that her voice and that of the textbook were not the only voices in the classroom, but that of the children too. We get to know who these children are through their participation in the classroom interactions. Also, through their translanguaging, we know that they are bilingual speakers of English and Swahili. Additionally, as readers we get to know, for example, when the grandparents visit the children in the city or the children visit their grandparents in the village, some grandparents speak to them in English (see turns 03–05). Therefore, it is not surprising that the students are actively involved in the classroom conversation because English language is not a barrier. English was so much part and parcel of the children at Nyika primary school even during Swahili lessons. They sometimes switched to English unconsciously during Swahili lessons. See Extract 6 below for illustration. Before this extract the children had read about drugs. The teacher started the lesson by reminding the children the following, “Sasa nataka tuongee Kiswahili. Hakuna lugha ya Kimombo. Nataka muenzi Kiswahili. Nawapa ruhusa kuongea Kiswahili” (Now I would like us to speak Swahili. There is no English speaking. I would like you to honor Swahili. I give you permission to speak Swahili). Although the students are expected to speak Swahili, the language practice at the school has taken away this right. Thus, Ms. Tina (the teacher) views herself as the agent who can decide which language to be spoken by the children, irrespective of the known school language practice. Moreover, it was important for Ms. Tina to remind her pupils to speak Swahili because it was a Swahili lesson. And more so, she wanted them to honor Swahili. Swahili is such an important language in the country given that it is the language which unites all the Kenyan citizens. Hence, every Kenyan must honor Swahili by speaking it.

36 

E. M. LISANZA

The Swahili text was about four middle school children who had been introduced to drugs. The four children had run away from their village school to the city to sell drugs. The police were involved, and the four children were taken to a correctional facility. The reading had illustrations of the four children leaving the school grounds, pills in a transparent bottle, rolled cigars and the children in the correctional facility. This was not just a mere reading for the acquisition of language and literacy. It was a reading packed with moral teachings. The abuse of drugs all over the world has become such a common phenomenon that it warrants children being educated so that they do not become victims. The earlier the children learn about this issue the better. It is important to note that in this lesson, the classroom interaction is no longer the traditional pattern of interaction between the teacher and the students but dialogic. In other words, it is a dialogically organized instruction. Dialogically organized instruction “provides public space for student responses, accommodating and frequently intermingling teacher-­ student voices” (Nystrand, 1997, p. 18). With this introduction, let us see the kind of classroom talk which ensued between Ms. Tina and her pupils. Extract 6 Swahili Lesson in Nyika 01 T: Dawa za kulevya ni nini? (What are drugs?) 02 Kalu: Excuse me teacher, sigara (cigarette) affects your lungs. 03 T: Ndio sigara hutoa moshi mwingi sana (Yes, cigarette gives out a lot of smoke). 04 Kalu: Sigara (cigarette), the smoke makes your mind go blank. 05 T: Yes, can you imagine the smoke from the kitchen the way it makes soot? 06 SS: [Seem not to get this idea. These children’s kitchens do not use firewood which produces a lot of smoke. They use gas and electric cookers.] 07 Rehema: It blocks your lungs. Smoke affects your lungs. 08 T: Yes! [Reads the first paragraph and says] Usiwe na marafiki wabaya (You should not have bad friends). 09 Kalu: What if someone puts the sigara (cigarette) in your mouth? 10 T: You refuse! And don’t go to their house. Remember we read in Social Studies you should not talk to strangers. 11 SS: Yes.

2  THE ENACTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICIES IN MUTITUNI… 

37

12 Kalu:

[Deep in thought supporting his head with both hands] Usiwe na marafiki wabaya (You should not have bad friends). 13 T: Ndio (Yes) [The lesson continued in the same format.] In turn 01 the teacher asks what drugs are, however, Kalu in turn 02 responds by giving the effects of cigarettes. As the reader may recall, there is a picture of rolled cigars in the reading. That image seems to have triggered Kalu’s response. He tells the teacher the effects of cigarettes which include affecting one’s lungs (see turn 02), and the smoke from the cigarettes makes one’s mind go blank (see turn 04). Rehema enters the conversation (see turn 07) where she supports the idea that smoke blocks one’s lungs and affects the lungs. In turn 08 the teacher goes back to the moral of the reading that the children should not have bad friends. Kalu just like the other children is emotionally invested in this lesson’s teaching and asks the teacher a hypothetical question in turn 09: “What if someone puts the cigarette in your mouth?” The teacher answers the question that he should refuse and reminds him about what they had covered previously that they should not talk to strangers and more importantly he should not go to the houses of people who might have bad influence on him. This is a dialogically organized lesson where the teacher is providing space for her pupils to air their views. Even though the teacher had reminded the children at the beginning of the lesson to speak in Swahili, as Bakhtin (1981, p. 296) observes, a multilingual speaker passes “from one [language] to the other without thinking, automatically.” And more importantly, it was not about which language to use in the lesson but the moral of the lesson. The children and their teacher are making use of their multilingual abilities to accomplish the task at hand. They are capable English and Swahili speakers and it is normal for them to translanguage in the two languages. As mentioned earlier, translanguaging is a common practice not only in Kenya but in many multilingual societies. People make use of their linguistic repertoires in conversations in seamless ways. Sometimes the speakers are not even aware that they are translanguaging because they are just communicating in the best way possible. This is why the languages divide in a multilingual speaker does not exist. As Garcia (2009) observed in bilingual classes “… although teachers may carefully plan when and how languages are to be used, children themselves use their entire linguistic repertoires flexibly”

38 

E. M. LISANZA

(p. 304). As mentioned earlier, before the lesson started the teacher had instructed her students to speak only in Swahili; however, this was not about languages anymore but about the content of the lesson. She personally translanguaged from Swahili to English (e.g., turns 05 & 10) to make sure she passed the moral of the story to the students. It is notable that the children are also borrowing words from the people around them. For example, Kalu directly borrows the teacher’s words “Usiwe na marafiki wabaya” (You should not have bad friends) in turn 12. The children make the other people’s words their own by appropriating them. As Bakhtin (1981) states, “The word in language is half someone else’s. It becomes one’s own only when the speaker populates it with his own intentions, own accent, when he appropriates the word, adapting to his own … expressive intention” (p.  293). Kalu has populated the teacher’s words with his own accent and meaning. Also, the teacher acts as a facilitator of knowledge by giving her children a space where they could air their fears and concerns. Again, if the language of instruction would have been a hindrance, then the children would not be able to air their fears and concerns. Therefore, the meaning which the teacher and students are constructing has been made possible by the languages of communication and instruction. The students are responding to the teacher’s voice and vice versa. At Nyika, even during recess the children and their teacher in most cases used English as the language of communication. The teacher seemed to be very free with the children. In the following extract two children are talking with the teacher after finishing drinking their 10 O’clock porridge. In this episode, the teacher is the addressee/listener and the children are the speakers. This episode reveals that Ms. Tina is a good listener. Extract 7 Recess 01 Jabali: Teacher, I know how to play a guitar. 02 T: Are you sure? 03 Jabali: Yes teacher. I am saying the truth to ashame the devil. 04 Dan: I also know how to play a guitar. 05 T: Today you are lying to me. 06 Dan: I am saying the truth. 07 Jabali: I know how to play a guitar. 08 T: I will invite you to our church. 09 Jabali: What is the name of your church? 10 T: I will tell you then.

2  THE ENACTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICIES IN MUTITUNI… 

11 Dan: 12 T:

39

I drink uji (porridge) in the morning and after lunch. That’s why you are a strong little boy. [Walks out of the classroom but the conversation continues].

In turn 01 a child named Jabali strikes a conversation with his teacher. He is the speaker and the teacher is the listener. The speaker informs his listener that he knows how to play the guitar. In turn 02 the addressee or the listener is surprised given that this is a seven-year-old boy and he knows how to play the guitar. In turn 03 the speaker confirms it is true that he plays the guitar and he is speaking the truth to humiliate the devil! The child makes reference to the Christian Religious Education subject where they are always reminded to speak the truth to shame the devil. In turn 04 another child named Dan enters the conversation. It also happens that he plays the guitar. In turn 05 the teacher goes back to her initial thought that not only one child is lying to her but two. Dan confirms in turn 06 that he is telling the truth. In turn 07 Jabali reassures his teacher that he knows how to play the guitar. In turn 08 the teacher is finally convinced that Jabali knows how to play the guitar and promises that she will invite him to her church to perform. In turn 09 Jabali wants more information about the teacher’s church given that there is a possibility of going to perform in the church. Here Jabali is playing the role of an authority in his field and therefore it is important that he gets the name of the organization he will be performing for. In turn 10 the teacher promises that she will give him the name of the church when the time comes. In turn 11 Dan changes the conversation from guitar playing to porridge drinking. He uses his multilingual abilities by referring to porridge as “uji” in Swahili. In turn 12 the teacher acknowledges that Dan is a strong little boy because of drinking porridge. Porridge in Kenya is one of the ­nutritious foods because its flour is a mixture of different grains, soy beans and nuts such as peanuts. In this conversation, we see that the roles have been reversed. Usually an adult strikes a conversation. However, the child (not the adult) is leading the conversation. Also, the adult is not playing the scaffolding role anymore. The child is operating at the intrapsychological level (Vygotsky, 1978); he is acting as an individual thinker or actor. He has provided new information about his guitar playing abilities to an adult. The adult interprets this information as a child play. This is why she says the child is lying to her. However, through the persuasion of the speaker, she is convinced and acknowledges his abilities by promising to invite him to perform in

40 

E. M. LISANZA

her church even though the name of the church is not revealed at this time. However, the other child Dan was not promised anything in terms of his guitar playing skills, but the teacher acknowledges his strength. Through the above conversation, it is also very clear even during recess that the language of communication is largely English. Sometimes Swahili surfaced but in essence English took the upper hand in the children’s conversations. Again, through the teacher providing a public space for children to tell their stories, we get to know the abilities of the children in the classroom. For example, Jabali and Dan are guitar players. From the above conversation and the previous conversations, we have seen so far and for others to come, Ms. Tina was also a good listener. For ongoing dialogues in the classroom, it is important for a teacher to be a good listener. Paley (1986) recommends that teachers listen to their pupils to learn more from their stories so as to know what the pupils are concerned with or interested in or simply to know what is happening in their lives. Through Ms. Tina’s listening we were able to know more about her pupils (e.g., Jabali and Dan). After looking at the enactment of both national and local language policies in the two classrooms, especially during content and Swahili classes, it is obvious that all the indigenous Kenyan languages besides Swahili play no role in these classrooms. Swahili is taught as a subject and also used as a language of communication in the two classrooms, especially at Mutituni. Therefore, the local languages/voices are silenced at the expense of English. English is not only the language of instruction but also the language of communication at Nyika primary school. It is important to note that the language policy in these two schools is not unique to the two schools nor is the Kenyan language policy unique. This is what we saw as a common practice in many postcolonial countries in Africa (e.g., Arthur, 2001; Krause & Prinsloo, 2016; Ndayipfukamiye, 2001; Owodally, 2011) (see Chap. 1) and elsewhere (e.g., Alexander, 2000; Hornberger & Chick, 2001; Sahni, 2001), where a former colonial language is used as a language of instruction. As we have seen, the school language policy at Mutituni was to use English as a language of instruction, however, this was a challenge to the children. This language policy hindered learning in the classroom. If the teacher had not translanguaged from English to Swahili, the children would have learned very little. Yet, the students at Nyika and Mutituni schools will sit for a common national exam by the end of the day. Moreover, it is important to note that translanguaging is not unique to Mutituni or Nyika schools either. It is a common practice in many postcolonial classrooms (e.g., Arthur, 2001; Canagarajah, 2001; Ndayipfukamiye, 2001).

2  THE ENACTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICIES IN MUTITUNI… 

41

Given that the national language policy states that the language of the surrounding community in linguistically homogeneous communities should be the language of instruction, then there is a mismatch between the official national language policy and the local language policy at Mutituni primary school. We have seen that this mismatch has a negative impact on the learning of Mutituni children. We did not observe the lively engagement in the classroom interactions in the Mutituni classroom during content lessons as we saw in the Nyika classroom. Neither did we learn anything about the children’s experiences during content classes as we learned about the Nyika children. From a sociocultural view, the children at Mutituni primary school are “linguistically deprived” because “the language of their natural competence” is “not of the school” (Hymes, 1972, p. xxi). The question is, should schools such as Mutituni let the language barrier impede the learning of the children? Or should the local language policy be changed in such schools? The answer is “Yes” if we really care about all the children. The Kenyan national policy must be implemented in all linguistically homogenous schools in the country. These languages are a resource to the Kenyan children. The children at Mutituni would have more agency in their learning. The English-only policy does not seem to work. The Mutituni pupils could not participate actively in the content lessons because they did not understand what the teacher was saying. As mentioned earlier, if the teacher had not translanguaged to Swahili, no learning could have taken place. This is heartbreaking. Therefore, it is important for bilingual and multilingual schools like Mutituni and Nyika to recognize the importance and value of translanguaging to enable effective communication in the classrooms. Additionally, another important aspect observed in this chapter besides the language policy matters is the mediating role of the teacher in the classroom which promotes children’s voices and agency in their learning. At Nyika primary school, mediation of learning was made possible by a teacher who was a good listener to the children’s concerns and interests. Hence, there is a great need to promote students’ voices in all classrooms because this gives students ownership of their learning as we have seen with the Nyika children. The teacher at Nyika primary school reminds me of the Swahili teacher Mrs. Swale at Kalimani primary (Lisanza, 2011, 2014). Mrs. Swale encouraged classroom talk at all times even when the children were doing writing activities which in most cases were supposed to be silent. This enabled the children to share their experiences with each

42 

E. M. LISANZA

other. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the language of instruction and the language of communication have a major role to play in the mediating process. Finally, we have seen, especially in the Swahili riddle lesson, the IRE pattern could be enacted not necessarily between the teacher and the students, but between students and students. Once it is student-to-student interaction, the students are in charge of their learning and the classroom is learner-centered. Additionally, as we saw in the Nyika classroom especially during Social Studies, in IRE interaction patterns, it is not always the teacher providing information and initiating questions but the learners could also assume these roles. We also saw that IRE pattern could be truncated to only two stages: IR.  In most cases when this happened the responses were choral, and hence it was really challenging to know if the children were learning or it was just safetalk (Hornberger & Chick, 2001). In safetalk the students usually participate in the oral interactions without necessarily understanding what is going on in the classroom. Let us now join the children and their teachers as they enact the official English reading curriculum.

References Alexander, R. J. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. UK: Blackwell Publishers. Arthur, J. (2001). Codeswitching and collusion: Classroom interaction in Botswana primary schools. In M. Heller & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 57–76). London: Ablex. Bagwasi, M. M. (2017). A critique of Botswana’s language policy from a translanguaging perspective. Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(2), 199–214. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In C.  Emersion & M.  Holquist (Eds.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.  Bakhtin (pp.  259–422). Austin: University of Texas Press. Canagarajah, S. (2001). Constructing hybrid postcolonial subjects: Codeswitching in Jaffna classrooms. In M. Martin-Jones & M. Heller (Eds.), Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 193–212). London: Ablex.  Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Chick, J. K. (1996). Safe-talk: Collusion in apartheid education. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 21–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2  THE ENACTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICIES IN MUTITUNI… 

43

Comber, B. (2016). The relevance of composing: Children’s spaces for social agency. In A.  H. Dyson (ed.), Child cultures, schooling, and literacy: Global perspectives on composing unique lives (pp. 119–132). New York and London: Routledge. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94(i), 103–115. Freebody, P. (2013). School knowledge in talk and writing: Talking ‘when learners know’ seriously. Linguistics and Education, 24, 64–74. Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Garcia, O. (2011). Educating New  York’s bilingual children: Constructing a future from the past. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14, 133–153. Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Hornberger, N.  C., & Chick, J.  K. (2001). Co-constructing school safetime: Safetalk practices in Peruvian and South African classrooms. In M. Heller & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 31–55). London: Ablex. Hymes, D. (1972 [2001]). On communicative competence. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 53–73). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Krause, L., & Prinsloo, M. (2016). Translanguaging in a township primary school: Policy and practice. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34(4), 347–357. Lisanza, E. M. (2011). What does it mean to learn oral and written English language: A case study of a rural Kenyan classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL. Lisanza, E. M. (2014). Dialogic instruction and learning: The case of one Kiswahili classroom. Language, Culture, & Curriculum, 27, 121–135. Martin-Jones, M., & Heller, M. (1996). Education in multilingual settings: Discourse, identities, and power. Linguistics and Education, 8(1&2). Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Moll, L. (2001). The diversity of schooling: A cultural-historical approach. In M.  Dela Luz Reyes & J.  J. Halcon (Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students (pp.  13–28). New  York: Teachers College Press. Ndayipfukamiye, L. (2001). The contradictions of teaching bilingually in postcolonial Burundi: From Nyakatsi to Maisons en Etages. In Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 101–116). London: Ablex.

44 

E. M. LISANZA

Nystrand, M. (1997). Dialogic instruction: When recitation becomes conversation. In M. Nystrand et al. (Eds.), Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom (pp. 1–29). NY: Teachers College Press. Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 292–411. O’Connor, C & Michaels, S. (2017). Supporting teachers in taking up productive talk moves: The long road to professional learning at scale. International Journal of Educational Research. www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures Owodally, M. A. (2011). Multilingual language and literacy practices and social identities in Sunni Madrassahs in Mauritius: A case study. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(2). https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.2.3 Paley, V. G. (1986). On listening to what the children say. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 122–131. Sahni, U. (2001). Children appropriating literacy: Empowerment pedagogy from young children’s perspectives. In B. Comber & A. Simpson (Eds.), Negotiating critical literacies in classroom (pp. 19–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39 (1), 9–30. Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articluation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1–7.

CHAPTER 3

The Enacted English Reading Curriculum

The goals of reading instruction are many; however, according to the national English curriculum of Kenya, the major goal of reading is that, “By the end of the first three years [of primary education], the learner should acquire, reading skills to be able to read … for information and pleasure, and to develop vocabulary and sentence structures” (National Syllabus, 2006, p. 4). And more specifically, the learners should be able to do the following: • read words • read simple sentences • read simple texts/passages/stories According to the Tusome national literacy program (2016), reading should emphasize the following five components: • phonemic awareness • alphabetic principle • fluency • vocabulary • comprehension The Tusome national literacy program was launched in Kenya in 2015 by the Ministry of Education. This is an early reading program. “Tusome” is © The Author(s) 2020 E. M. Lisanza, The Multivoices of Kenyan Primary School Children Learning to Read and Write, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38110-3_3

45

46 

E. M. LISANZA

a Swahili word for “let’s read.” “Tusome is designed to dramatically improve primary literacy outcome for approximately 7  million Kenyan children in grades 1–3” (rti.org). Tusome program was conceptualized and developed because across the country literacy rates in primary schools were significantly lower than expected despite free basic education in Kenya since 2003 (rti.org). It is important to note that the Tusome literacy program is “designed to teach learners the specific skills needed to be successful readers. The activities cover the four components of literacy (listening, speaking, reading and writing), as well as the five components of reading…,” which are mentioned above (Tusome Teacher’s guide, 2016, p. iv). Therefore, it is part of the competency-based curriculum which was launched by the Ministry of Education in 2017 (see Republic of Kenya, 2017). The competency-based curriculum emphasizes the significance of developing skills, knowledge, attitudes and values and also applying those competencies in real-life situations (Republic of Kenya, 2017). Therefore, given the expectations of the national curriculum, the two English teachers, Mrs. Kyeni of Mutituni primary school and Ms. Tina of Nyika primary school embarked on teaching their pupils how to crack the reading code. That is, how to recognize letters and their sounds, how to put letter sounds together to read words, how to read sentences and simple texts in the hope that they will be able to read not only for information but also for pleasure. As mentioned in Chap. 1, data analysis in the chapters of this book was guided by sociocultural and dialogic framework. The data revealed that language learning and literacy are context-bound. That is, language learning and literacy cannot be detached from their physical, sociocultural and ideological contexts (Lisanza, 2011). As the pupils and teachers interacted in their classrooms, they enacted particular practices that were shaped by the physical, sociocultural and ideological contexts of the classrooms, schools and the society. As a matter of fact, data showed that there was a clear distinction on how reading was enacted in the two classrooms because of the prevailing contexts of each classroom. On the one hand, at Mutituni primary school, the children overwhelmingly recited after the teacher, especially during phonics instruction and reading of extended text. However, during vocabulary instruction, the teacher tried to involve students in the generation of meanings of different words. However, it was challenging because the students were not competent in English. If the teacher had not allowed translanguaging between English and Swahili, the generation of meanings would have been impossible. On the other

3  THE ENACTED ENGLISH READING CURRICULUM 

47

hand, the children at Nyika primary school generally engaged with the reading  successfully. There were dialogues in the Nyika classroom. My argument is that the emphasis on the use of English in both schools was to the disadvantage of the Mutituni children because English was not their first language. Also, due to paucity of literacy resources like textbooks and storybooks and the overwhelming number of students, recital reading was unavoidable in this classroom. However, in the Nyika classroom there were many literacy materials available and the number of students was manageable, and English was “the language of their natural competence” (Hymes, 1972, p. xxi). Hence, dialogues were possible in this classroom. As a result of recital/choral reading or monologic reading in the Mutituni classroom, the main classroom interaction pattern was “monologic discourse pattern” (Nystrand, 2006) or the traditional IRE interaction pattern. Because of dialogic reading in the Nyika classroom, the main classroom interaction pattern was dialogically organized (Nystrand, 1997). In a dialogically organized classroom, there is frequent interacting of the teacher’s voice and the students’ voices. While in the monologic organized classroom, the teacher’s voice dominates the classroom learning. Just as the teachers and the pupils interacted with each other during reading lessons in both schools, so did Swahili and English. Although according to the official language policies (national and local), the two languages had to be kept separate so that they do not “pollute” each other; the students and teachers translanguaged between English and Swahili just as we saw in Chap. 2. Reading instruction in both classrooms included vocabulary instruction and extended text reading. However, phonics instruction was only common in the Mutituni classroom. I will now illustrate how reading by recitation was carried out in the Mutituni classroom, especially during phonics instruction and reading of simple texts.

The Enacted Reading Curriculum at Mutituni Primary School As already mentioned, reading instruction at Mutituni primary school was marked by choral reading/recitation. The reading instruction in this school followed strictly what the Tusome Teacher’s Guide Class 2 (2016) stipulated. According to the Tusome Teacher’s Guide, the approach used

48 

E. M. LISANZA

for reading single words and stories was “I do/We do/You do,” that is, for example, the teacher (I do) says/reads the sound in each word and then blends the sounds to say/read the word (e.g., /d/r/ /ai//v//a/driver). Next, she repeats the sounds and the word with the students (We do). Finally, the students read the sounds and words on their own. The same approach was applied to reading short stories which were written in the course textbook. She read the entire story, which was followed by choral reading by the entire class and herself, and finally, the students read the story chorally by their own. In the following extract, Mrs. Kyeni is teaching her pupils how to read some words which end with letters -er. The words are teacher, seller, reader, richer and farmer. This is a phonics instruction class. As the Tusome Teacher’s Guide dictated, the teacher first read the sounds and then blended the sounds to make the word. Then she did the same procedure with the pupils and then the pupils recited on their own. This was a teacher-led recitation. Also, the interaction pattern was monologic in nature. Extract 1a 01 T:

Close all the books. [T writes on the blackboard “English.”] I am going to read some sounds and then read the whole word. [Writes the word “teacher” on blackboard and reads the sounds and the word] /t//ii/ /ch/ /a/ - teacher. 02 SS: /t//ii/ /ch/ /a/ - teacher. 03 T: /t//ii/ /ch/ /a/ - teacher. Let’s say together. 04 T & SS: /t//ii/ /ch/ /a/ - teacher. 05 T: Let’s say together again. 06 T & SS: /t//ii/ /ch/ /a/ - teacher. 07 T: This side [points to the first row] 08 SS: /t//ii/ /ch/ /a/ - teacher. 09 T: This side [points to the second row]. 10 SS: /t//ii/ /ch/ /a/ - teacher. 11 T: This side [points to the third row]. 12 SS: /t//ii/ /ch/ /a/ - teacher. 13 T: /t//ii/ /ch/ /a/ - teacher. 14 SS: /t//ii/ /ch/ /a/ - teacher. 15 T: I have another word. [Writes the word “seller” on blackboard and says the sounds and the word] /S//e//l//a/- seller 16 T &SS: /S//e//l//a/- seller 17 T: Say alone

3  THE ENACTED ENGLISH READING CURRICULUM 

49

18 SS: 19 T:

/S//e//l//a/- seller There is another word. [Writes the word “reader” on blackboard and says the sounds and the word] /R//i//d//a/- reader 20 T & SS: /R//i//d//a/ - reader 21 T: [Pointing] This side alone. 22 SS: /R//i//d//a/- reader 23 T: [Pointing] This side alone. 24 SS: /R//i//d//a/ - reader 25 T: I have another word. Listen carefully /r//i// ch//a/ - richer. 26 T & SS: /r//i//ch//a/, richer 27 T: Again 28 SS: /r//i//ch//a/ - richer. 29 T: I have another word. /f//a//m//a/ - farmer. 30 T&SS: /f//a//m//a/ - farmer. 31 SS: /f//a//m//a/ - farmer. 32 T: [Pointing] This side. 33 SS: /f//a//m//a/ - farmer. 34 T: All these words end with letters “r” and “e,” sound /a/. Letter “e” and “r” makes sound /a/. [The lesson continued with the teacher asking students to read the following words: leader, buyer, reader, richer, greener. The continuation of this lesson will be provided in Extract 1b]. The teacher in this lesson is using whole class direct instruction approach. Direct instruction approach in reading is the approach recommended by the Tusome Teacher’s Guide (2016). The guide states that, “This guide is based on a Direct Instructional Approach. The approach helps teachers instruct learners in the fundamental skills in reading that are necessary for improving fluency in reading and comprehension” (p. iii). Many reading specialists have also emphasized the need for direct instruction in reading. Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, and Tarver (2010) observe that, “Our position is that many students will not become successful readers unless teachers identify the essential reading skills, find out what skills students lack, and teach those skills directly” (p. 23). Direct instruction is a basic perspective on improving the reading performance of pupils. Phillips, Menchetti, and Lonigan (2008) state that, “A hallmark of explicit instruction is that it includes specific teacher statements and behaviors that

50 

E. M. LISANZA

make it very clear to the students … what they are being asked to do and what it looks when accomplished” (p. 10). For instance, Mrs. Kyeni modeled how to read sounds and words, followed by supported practice. There is a lot of scaffolding going on in this lesson. Scaffolding provides support for the pupil to perform a skill (e.g., reading a word) independently. Note that Mrs. Kyeni has drilled five words in the above extract. The first word “teacher” is drilled from turns 01 to 14, the second word “seller” is drilled from turns 15 to 18, the third word “reader” is drilled from turns 19 to 24, the fourth word “richer” is drilled from turns 25 to 28, and the last word “farmer” is drilled from turns 29 to 33. A lot of drilling was done in the first word “teacher” and the second word “seller” compared to the other three words. I associated this drilling with an effort by the teacher to make sure that the students got the skill right. Nonetheless, this is a transmission lesson which is marked by whole class choral reading and monologic pattern of interaction. In addition, the mode of instruction is ritualized with “I do,” “we do” and “you do” as Tusome Teacher’s Guide dictated. Hence, the teacher and her students seem to be very much constrained by what the guide stipulated during phonics instruction. Therefore, there was not much creativity going on in this lesson either from the teacher or her students. After reading the different sounds and words with the students in extra 1a, Mrs. Kyeni wrote the following words on the blackboard and asked the students to read chorally as a whole class: leader, buyer, reader, richer, greener. From a sociocultural point of view, the students are now operating at the “intrapsychological level” (Vygotsky, 1978). Extract 1b 01 T: Can you now read for the teacher. 02 SS: /l//ii//d//a/- leader 03 T: Again 04 SS: /l//ii//d//a/- leader 05 T: Read the rest of the words. 06 SS: /b//ai//a/- buyer; /r//ii//d//a/- reader; /r//i//ch//a/; richer; /g//r/ii//n//a/; greener 07 T: Clap for yourself. 08 SS: [Clap]. Although the students are reading chorally (see turns 02, 04 and 06) which may be hard to determine if each student has acquired the skill or not, the majority of the students were able to read the words on the black-

3  THE ENACTED ENGLISH READING CURRICULUM 

51

board. Thus, the students who were able to read were operating at an intrapsychological level. Still, it would have been important for Mrs. Kyeni to call upon individual students to read out the words or other words with similar sounds and letters. Although with 39 students in the classroom, only a few would have the opportunity to read the words before the whole class. We have seen how Mrs. Kyeni tried to introduce her pupils to phonological awareness through blending of sounds, which was in essence teacher-led choral reading. Now let us join Mrs. Kyeni as she does vocabulary instruction in her class. This lesson came after the phonics instruction of the words, which end with letters -er and sound /a/ in Extracts 1a and 1b. In this lesson translanguaging is utilized by pupils as they provide meaning of different words. Also, the prevalent classroom interaction is the traditional IRF/IRE interaction pattern. Extract 1c 01 T: Today I have new words and I would like us to give meaning. The first word is “share.” What is the meaning of share? What is to share? 02 SS: [Quiet] 03 T: What is to share? [Calls Kioko whose hand is up] Kioko? 04 Ki: [Says in Swahili] kupatiana (to give). 05 T: He is saying in Swahili. [Calls Mwende whose hand is up] Mwende. 06 Mwe: [Says in Swahili] Kama rafiki hana kitu unampa (if a friend does not have something you give it to him/her). 07 T: She is saying in Swahili. [Calls on Nyota whose hand is up] Nyota 08 Nyo: To help someone. 09 T: Okay. Let’s say I come to school with sweets and give them to you; when I am giving you sweets, I am sharing. 10 T: [Writes on the board the word] Share [and asks] Who likes sharing? 11 SS: [Some raise their hands up]. 12 T: Someone [points to Imani] 13 Im: I like to share. 14 T: Very good. Use the word “share” in a sentence. [Calls on Kanze whose hand is up] Kanze. 15 Ka: My teacher likes sharing.

52 

E. M. LISANZA

16 T: 17 S1: 18 T: 19 T: 20 S2: 21 T:

[Points to another student] I like sharing. Very good. [Points to another student] My brother likes sharing. Very good. [Writes and reads] It is good to share. Can you read? 22 SS: [Some] It is good to share. [The lesson continued with the children being asked to define the words worker and driver]. Mrs. Kyeni in the above lesson is actively involving the learners in the generation of meaning, and through this she is trying to integrate learners’ prior knowledge with what is being taught in the classroom. In turn 01 she asks the students the meaning of the word “share.” She repeats the question twice, however, no student speaks in turn 02. She repeats the same question in turn 03 and nominates Kioko to answer the question. In turn 04 Kioko gives the meaning of “to share” in Swahili. In turn 05, Mrs. Kyeni evaluates Kioko’s answer by saying that he has given the answer in Swahili and in the same turn she nominates Mwende to give an answer. In turn 06 Mwende just like Kioko, gives her answer in Swahili. In turn 07, the teacher evaluates Mwende’s answer by saying that she is speaking in Swahili. It is important to note that Mrs. Kyeni supports her students’ multilingual abilities by simply saying “He/she has said it in Swahili.” Hence, the teacher is supporting her students’ translanguaging skills. In turn 07 Mrs. Kyeni also nominates another student, Nyota, to give the meaning of the word share. In turn 08 Nyota gives the meaning of share in English as “to help someone.” This meaning is not different from what her peers gave in Swahili. Thus, it is clear that these children even though they may not have much English vocabulary in their linguistic repertoire, they do have Swahili. In turn 09, the teacher evaluates Nyota’s response by saying “okay” and gives the students the meaning of “sharing.” The teacher’s definition of the term is important to complement what the students nominated earlier had said. So far, this is IRF pattern of interaction (not IRE), whereby the teacher asks a question which is followed by the students’ responses and the teacher simply gives feedback by saying either, “he/she is speaking in Swahili” or just “okay.” However, from turn 10 to turn 14, turn 14 to turn 18 and from turn 19 to turn 21, these are three

3  THE ENACTED ENGLISH READING CURRICULUM 

53

part IRE patterns, where the teacher asks students questions, for example, to use the word share in a sentence (Initiation), nominates a student to respond (Response) and evaluates (Evaluation) (IRE). To finalize on the use of the word “share” in a sentence, in turn 21 she gives her own example, which she writes on the board and instructs all the students to read chorally. Again, the teacher’s example is important to complement students’ responses. As seen from the above extract, as part of the vocabulary instruction, Mrs. Kyeni introduces the word to be defined, which is followed by asking the pupils to give the meaning. She nominates several individual students to give the meaning. She finally gives her own definition of the vocabulary item. She then nominates individual pupils to use the new word in a sentence. This is followed by Mrs. Kyeni using the new word in her own sentence. She then instructs the whole class to read the word chorally. It is important that Mrs. Kyeni involves the children to generate meanings in English or Swahili and also to use the new words in a sentence because this gives them agency in their language learning. Also, the translanguaging between two languages (in this case, English and Swahili) by the students has been seen by many scholars (e.g., Bagwasi, 2017; Baker, 2011; Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012a, 2012b) as helping the development of the weaker language. As Baker (2011) observed, “Translanguaging attempts to develop language skills in both languages to a fuller bilingualism and biliteracy” (p.  290). As mentioned earlier, the teacher followed strictly what Tusome Teacher’s Guide advocated for, and translanguaging was not one of the practices mentioned or promoted in the guide. Nevertheless, the pupils translanguaged. Therefore, translanguaging was a major resource which helped the children in this classroom to connect with the lesson. Apart from reading single words, Mrs. Kyeni also socialized her students on how to read stories from the textbook. In this reading two or three pupils are sharing a book. The class is reading a story about “The new Cow” from the course textbook. This lesson came after the vocabulary instruction in Extract 1c. Just like in the reading of single words, this was a teacher-led choral reading. It also followed the ritual “I do,” “we do” and “you do.”

54 

E. M. LISANZA

Extract 1d 01 T:

I want us to read a story. The story is about a farmer who gets a new cow. Open your books on page 87. 02 SS: [Open page 87 of the class textbook]. 03 T: Do you have cows at home? 04 SS: Yes 05 T: What do we get from cows? 06 SS (Some): Milk and meat 07 T: Do you like milk? 08 SS: Yes 09 T: Look at the picture. Can you predict what will happen in the story? 10 SS: [Only one hand is raised up] 11 T: Faith 12 Fa: The farmer will drink milk. 13 T: What else? 14 SS: [Only Nyota’s hand is up] 15 T: Nyota 16 Nyo: The man will buy a cow. 17 T: What else? 18 SS: [Many children are quiet; no more hands are up]. 19 T: Okay. I will read, then we will read together. Can you put your finger on the first sentence? 20 SS: [Students are pointing with their fingers] 21 T: [After reading the keywords: driver, worker and share, she then reads the passage about a new cow and then she instructs the students] Let’s read together. 22 T &SS: [Reading together.] 23 T: Okay, now is your turn. Read together. 24 SS: [Most of the students are attempting to read even though the students seated next to me at the back are “lip reading” (i.e., just opening their mouths with no words being heard)]. 25 T: Very good. It is time for questions. [These are passage questions]. And the first question is for the teacher. What happened to Mr. Musa? We said if you want to get it, you have to go back to the story. [She reads a couple of ­sentences and reads the question once more and then gives the answer.] What happened to Mr. Musa? Answer: He got a new cow. [Talking to the students] This one is yours now. Is it easy to make a cowshed?

3  THE ENACTED ENGLISH READING CURRICULUM 

55

26 SS: 27 T: 28 SS: 29 T: 30 SS: 31 T: 32 SS: 33 T: 34 SS: 35 T:

[No response.] Is it in the story? [Some] No. So, you are going to use your mind. [No response.] Is it easy to make a cowshed? [Some] No Count up to the sixth line. [Not all students are counting]. [Reads the sixth line] The worker worked fast. [Then asks] Is it easy to make a cowshed? 36 SS: [Some] Yes 37 T: [Said in Kiswahili] Lazima utumie akili yako (You must use your brains). [Reads the next question] Why is the new cow happy? 38 SS: [A few students raise their hands.] 39 T: Pendo 40 Pe: Because it has a new shed. 41 T: Very good. Because it has a new shed. Where is that answer? 42 SS: [Quiet] 43 T: Can you count up to the seventh line? 44 SS: [Some are counting] 45 T: Why is it happy? 46 SS: [Some] Because it has a new shed. [This marked the end of this reading lesson which was followed by a writing activity.] In this reading lesson, Mrs. Kyeni is following strictly what the teacher’s guide stipulates: “I do,” “we do” and “you do.” That is, she reads the story, then her and the students read together and, finally, the students read the story on their own. This is a choral reading. In the beginning of the lesson, the teacher does prereading by asking the children in turn 03 if they have cows at home and the students answer affirmatively. Then in turn 05 she asks them what comes from cows and some of the students answer chorally “milk and meat” (see turn 06). In turn 07 she asks them if they like milk. Which they answer affirmatively, and finally in turn 09 she asks the children to look at the picture and predict what will happen in the story. Only two pupils predict what will happen in the story. This

56 

E. M. LISANZA

was an open question unlike the previous questions which were closed. I assumed due to the language challenge the children did not participate much. The prereading is followed by the reading of the text where the teacher first reads (models reading), then the teacher reads with the pupils (scaffolding) and then pupils read alone. The reading is followed by answering of the comprehension questions. The teacher answers the first question (I do) and then the students answer the next two questions on their own (you do). Even though the teacher models reading, it is apparent that this is not successful because most of the students are not able to answer the comprehension questions. I associated the lack of participation with the language challenge. As already mentioned, given that students are not given an opportunity to read individually, it is not possible to determine how many pupils have the ability to read. Choral reading has its own challenges. For example, with choral reading, it is hard to assist the pupils who are struggling with reading skills. Furthermore, in the above lesson, the pupils have not personally engaged with the reading in any meaningful way. The words in the book remained in the book. There is no connection made between the words in the book and the lives of the children. Given that this is a rural setting and some of the children’s families own some cattle, this is a missed opportunity to bridge the gap between school and the community. As readers we would have had an opportunity to learn something about the children. Although the language of communication and instruction played a big part in the students not being actively involved with the reading as we saw in the prereading part; nevertheless, it would have been crucial for the teacher to try to involve the students in the reading by letting them talk about the cows or any other animals at home. This would help the children in developing literacy as well as developing language skills as Clay (1998) observes, “The more children engage in telling stories, the more command they get over language” (p. 40). When children are given the space to tell their own stories, it is amazing how much they can command language, as we will see later with the Nyika children. It is important to facilitate reading effectively. Students should be given an opportunity to engage with the reading in a meaningful way. Also, teachers have to pay attention to students’ performance. According to Cunningham (2017) the teachers should ask the following questions if the students or a student is not performing at the desired levels:

3  THE ENACTED ENGLISH READING CURRICULUM 

57

. Was the initial presentation clear? 1 2. Did students need more examples/support? 3. Did instruction keep the students engaged? 4. Was the instruction meaningful to the students? 5. Was there adequate practice? And I would like to add one more point to Cunnigham’s points, especially in the second or foreign language classrooms, “was students’ primary language utilized effectively in the classroom?” An effective teacher must be a reflective teacher. Through reflection, a teacher is able to adjust her instruction as we will see later with Ms. Tina adjusting her handwriting instruction at Nyika primary school. I did not observe any adjustment with reading instruction at Mutituni primary school. It was the same format over and over. That is, reading sounds, reading words, reading stories, and so on, which was predominantly teacher-controlled and choral in nature. So far, we have seen how children were taught how to read at Mutituni primary school. In summary, we could say that the teacher used phonics instruction in trying to build children’s reading skills. They sounded out letters and then blended them to form the word in question. The children were also introduced to vocabulary instruction. After reading out the new word, the teacher asked the children to give its meaning and then asked them to use the word in a sentence. Additionally, the pupils were introduced to the reading of comprehensions. In essence, the reading of words and passages were predominantly choral in nature. With 39 students, shortage of books, a crowded classroom and a language policy, which advocated for English only, it turned out that choral reading was at best unavoidable. Also, the predominant classroom interaction pattern was IRE/IRF or monologic in nature. Furthermore, even though the language policy and the teacher’s guide did not support translanguaging, the pupils translanguaged in the classroom. This shows how bilingual children use their linguistic abilities seamlessly. Finally, it is important to state that reading comprehension was provided alongside phonics instruction. The lesson for language teachers to draw from this classroom is that phonics instruction which is one of the foundations of reading (Cunningham, 2017) should be taught alongside reading comprehension. As Cunningham notes, one of the lessons which was learned from the failure of Reading First under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in the USA was that it emphasized phonics at

58 

E. M. LISANZA

the expense of reading and writing. For children to succeed in reading and writing, literacy programs must center reading and writing. Under Reading First, reading and writing were deferred till third grade. However, this should not be the case in any program. Let us now turn to Nyika primary school and see how reading was carried out.

The Enacted Reading Curriculum at Nyika Primary School As mentioned earlier, the majority of the children at Nyika primary school spoke English at home before joining school. They were also fluent speakers of Swahili. None of the children spoke any other Kenyan indigenous language apart from Swahili. In the following lesson, the class is reading a story titled “Holiday Travel.” In this reading there are two children named Tasha and Mwendwa who have gone to visit their cousins in Mombasa. Mombasa is one of the coastal towns in Kenya where many people from all over the world go for holidays. In this lesson each student is given an opportunity to read three sentences while the rest of the students point to the words/sentences being read with their fingers. This was a common practice in this classroom. Choral reading was not common in the classroom. Although the major classroom interaction is IRE during reading, as will be discussed, this pattern was “disrupted” making it more of a dialogic reading than monologic. It is important to note that the pupils are not sharing their books. Each student has his/her own book. It is important to note that the teacher in this classroom made reference to many guides in her teaching. She did not depend on one guide as we saw with the Mutituni school. As mentioned earlier, this is an affluent school and therefore availability of resources is not an issue. Extract 2a 01T: 02 S1: 03 S2: 04 T:

Open page 78. Today we are going to read about holiday travel. I want you to read each three sentences. This is Tasha and Mwendwa. They are in Mombasa. They have come to visit their cousin. Tasha and Mwendwa are going into a matatu. There are many taxis and matatus in Mombasa. Tasha and Mwendwa are going to do what in Mombasa?

3  THE ENACTED ENGLISH READING CURRICULUM 

05 SS: 06 T: 07 Re: 08 T: 09 SS: 10 T: 11 SS: 12 T: 13 SS: 14 T: 15 Ka: 16 T: 17 Su: 18 T: 19 SS: 20 T: 21 Ci: 22 T: 23 Juma: 24 T: 25 Ju: 26 T: 27 S3: 28 T: 29 Su: 30 T: 31 Ja:

59

[Raising hands] Rehema. To visit their cousin. Very good. Tasha and Mwendwa are going into a… [expecting the students to complete the sentence] [Some]: Bus. No! Read paragraph one. [Read loudly] Where are they going into? Matatu. Kalu read the next three sentences. This is a roundabout. There are traffic police officers. They are helping on the road. Subira. There are also traffic lights. Some drivers do not stop at traffic lights. What is a roundabout? [Raising hands up] Ciru A roundabout has traffic lights and has a circle and shows which cars to go. Good trial. [Raising his hand up]. Juma. A roundabout is round but there is grass in the middle. And there are four lights. There are four roads, here and there and goes this way [pointing to his right and left]. Good trial. A roundabout is a junction of many roads. Vehicles have to take turns. Next. People are crossing the road. They are crossing it at a zebra crossing. The traffic police officer has stopped the cars. Some drivers do not read road signs. What is the work of a police officer? [calls on Subira, one of the pupils whose hand is up] Subira. Supporting people to cross the road safely. Are they lame? Jabali. To make sure there are no accidents.

60 

E. M. LISANZA

32 T: 33 Ka:

Good trial. Kadogo. To help people not to do accidents. And to support people cross the road. 34 T: Good trial. Yusufu. 35 Yu: Makes sure when people are crossing the road are safe. 36 T: Okay. The police officer makes sure that the pedestrians and drivers follow the rules of the road. Who are pedestrians? [Points to one of the students] 37 S4: Pedestrians are people who are walking on the road. 38 T: Good. What is a zebra crossing? [calls on Dan, one of the children whose hand is raised] Dan. 39 Da: It is where people walk on the road safely because cars slow down. 40 S5: Some zebra crossings are on the bumps. 41 Kalu: Others are on the bridge. 42 T: No, they can’t be on the bumps and bridges. Red means what? 43 Subira: Red means stop. 44 T: Who stops? 45 Subira: It can be the vehicles or the cars. 46 T: Listen to me. When it is red pedestrians don’t cross. When it is green the pedestrians go. 47 Jabali: Teacher, there are traffic lights for the people and cars. 48 T: Right. How many colors? 49 SS: Three 50 T: Green means what? 51 SS: Go [The lesson continued in the same format] This reading lesson is marked by pupils individually reading a couple of sentences and the teacher guiding her pupils on how to comprehend what is going on in the story through asking comprehension questions and also doing vocabulary instruction as they read along. It is a lesson which is also marked by IRE pattern of interaction even though from time to time the pattern is “disrupted” by the pupils’ contribution to their learning. The lesson starts in turn 01 where the teacher gives instruction that each pupil will read three sentences. In turns 02 and 03 two pupils read the first paragraph which is composed of six sentences. After the first paragraph reading, the teacher interjects in turn 04 with a question asking where the two chil-

3  THE ENACTED ENGLISH READING CURRICULUM 

61

dren in the story are going. In turn 06 she nominates a child named Rehema to answer the question. In turn 07 Rehema answers that Tasha and Mwendwa are going to visit their cousins. This answer is evaluated by the teacher in turn 08 as correct by saying, “Very good.” From turns 05 to 08 this is a complete three cycle IRE interaction pattern where the teacher Initiates a question, nominates a student to answer and evaluates the response. In turn 08 the teacher wants the children to complete the sentence “Tasha and Mwendwa are going into a __________.” In turn 09 pupils complete the sentence chorally by saying “bus.” There is a logical reason why the pupils have given this response. Usually people travel from far and wide in Kenya to go to Mombasa by bus because it is a long distance. In turn 10 the teacher evaluates the students’ answer as wrong according to the reading. Even though from turn 08 to turn 10 is a form of IRE interaction pattern this is not the usual IRE interaction pattern where a teacher nominates one student to answer. In the second slot all students answer chorally and in the third slot the teacher evaluates the answer as wrong. If it was one student who had missed the question under regular IRE pattern, the teacher would have nominated another student to answer the question; however, this was not the case. Literally all pupils had given a wrong answer. Therefore, after her evaluation, (i.e., in turn 10), she instructs her pupils to reread paragraph one. Here, she is giving her pupils one of the strategies for finding information from a text. In turn 11 the pupils chorally read the first paragraph. In turn 12 the teacher revoices her previous question by asking how the children in the text would travel to Mombasa. In turn 13 the pupils answer the question chorally stating the means of travel as “Matatu.” Therefore, the teacher’s strategy has helped her pupils to get the correct answer. A “Matatu” is a minibus/shuttle in Kenya. Usually matatus operate within a city not across cities. They are designed for short distances. Thus, this reading is m ­ isleading given the reality in the country. After this, the reading task resumes with Kalu and Subira reading in turns 15 and 17, respectively. This marks the end of the second paragraph and gives the teacher a good opportunity to do vocabulary instruction in turn 18. Vocabulary instruction, just like the comprehension instruction, is marked by IRE interaction pattern. She initiates a question by asking the pupils the meaning of a roundabout. Two pupils: Ciru and Juma in turns 21 and 25 respectively provide their own understanding of a roundabout. Ciru says, “A roundabout has traffic lights and has a circle and shows which cars to go,” while Juma says, “A roundabout is round but there is grass in the middle. And there are four lights. There are four roads,

62 

E. M. LISANZA

here and there and goes this way” [pointing to his right and left]. The teacher evaluates each of these responses as “Good trial.” In this class, I interpreted “Good trial” to mean the answer is incomplete or the teacher wants more pupils to offer their responses. In turn 26 the teacher gives her definition of a roundabout as “a junction of many roads. Vehicles have to take turns.” Thus, Ciru and Juma were correct; the teacher was simply eliciting more student participation by saying, “good trial.” Turn 27 marked the start of a new paragraph. This paragraph had only four sentences and the teacher let one of the students read the four sentences. After the reading, in turn 28 the teacher goes back to comprehension instruction, which just like the previous one, is marked by IRE interaction pattern. The teacher asks a comprehension question about the work of a police officer. The teacher nominates four students to answer the question who respond in turns 29, 31, 33 and 35 respectively as “support people to cross the road safely”; “make sure there are no accidents” and “to help people not to do accidents. And to support people cross the road” and “make sure when people are crossing the road are safe.” After each response, the teacher evaluates the answer as either incorrect (see turn 30) or “good trial” (incomplete or correct answer) (see turns 32, 34 and 36). Nevertheless, note that the teacher in turn 30 evaluates Subira’s response as wrong by asking a rhetorical question. However, given the context, Subira’s answer that the work of a police officer is “supporting people to cross the road safely” is correct. Nevertheless, the teacher seems to have only taken one meaning of the word “support” where one has to literally hold one’s hand to cross the road. I interpreted this to be one of the shortcomings of IRE interaction pattern where sometimes a teacher has preconceived answers to the questions he/she asks. It is also important to note how in turn 33 Kadogo revoices Jabali’s and Subira’s responses. This revoicing shows that the ­children are listening to each other. In turn 36 the teacher gives her version of the work of a police officer as follows, “The police officer makes sure that the pedestrians and drivers follow the rules of the road.” The teacher’s contribution was important for complementing students’ responses. In turns 36 and 38 the teacher switches to vocabulary instruction where she asks, “who are pedestrians?” and “what is a zebra crossing?” In turn 37 she nominates a student to give the definition of a “pedestrian” and the student’s response is evaluated as correct. In turn 39 Dan gives the definition of a “zebra crossing” and before the teacher can evaluate the response, the IRE pattern is “disrupted” by one of the pupils in turn 40 who says that “some zebra crossings are on the bumps,” and in turn 41

3  THE ENACTED ENGLISH READING CURRICULUM 

63

Kalu jumps in the conversation and says, “others are on the bridge.” In turn 42 the teacher claims a turn immediately to correct a misconception by the two children and perhaps by many more in the classroom. She tells the children that zebra crossings cannot be on the bumps and bridges. In the same turn she initiates another question about color red. In turn 43 Subira answers without waiting to be nominated by the teacher once more “disrupting” the traditional mode of interacting in the classroom where the teacher has to nominate a student to answer a question. She says, “red means stop.” In turn 44 the teacher probes Subira further by asking, “who stops?” In turn 45 Subira says, “it can be vehicles or the cars.” I interpreted this to be a slip of the tongue and perhaps Subira meant to say, “it can be pedestrians or cars.” The teacher is not satisfied with Subira’s answer and in turn 46 she calls the attention of all the children because this was a teaching moment. She says, “When it is red pedestrians don’t cross. When it is green the pedestrians go.” This is a matter of life and death; for instance, if a child crosses the road while the cars are on their full speed, it can be fatal. Thus, this was indeed a great opportunity for the teacher to emphasize to the children about road safety. It is also important that the children get educated not only about the pedestrians’ rules but also about the road rules which apply to the drivers because they are the future drivers. It is good to train children when they are young. Those rules will forever be ingrained in their minds. From turns 42–45 on the third slot (evaluation slot), the teacher does not evaluate but probes further to have the student expand her answer. Again, the IRE pattern is “disrupted” by a child named Jabali who provides information in turn 47 without being nominated by the teacher as it is the norm with IRE interaction pattern. Jabali emphasizes that “there are traffic lights for both people and cars.” The teacher agrees with Jabali’s i­nformation and asks how many colors there are on the road in turn 48. Once more the IRE pattern is “disrupted” in turns 49 and 51 by the pupils answering in unison without the usual one student answering the question after being nominated by the teacher. Looking at these choral responses in turns 49 and 51, they usually consist of one-word response (see also turns 09 and 13). However, individual student responses are longer. Hence, more language is generated when a student responds to a question individually than when students respond chorally. Therefore, there is need to minimize choral responses if we really want our students to grow their language and literacy skills. Thus, looking at the above lesson extract, in this classroom reading comprehension and vocabulary instruction are done in a seamless way. For

64 

E. M. LISANZA

example, the teacher asks the students the meanings of roundabout, pedestrian and zebra crossing. Here, the teacher is activating students’ prior knowledge. The teacher also checks the children’s understanding by asking several questions. For example, the teacher asks the children the work of a police officer. Moreover, in this classroom, we have noted that the children have an opportunity, which was the norm, to read aloud a few sentences of a story in turns while the other students read along by pointing with their fingers. According to the sociocultural theory, these students are capable readers and they do not seem to need a lot of teacher’s facilitation in doing phonics like we saw with the Mutituni children. For example, in the above lesson, the teacher let individual students read three sentences each. Even though the major classroom interaction pattern was IRE/IRF, this pattern was “interrupted” by students answering questions without waiting to be called by the teacher. Hence, the teacher’s voice and students’ voices intermingled and in the process dialogues were initiated in the classroom. These dialogues were possible because the children spoke English very well. In Extract 2a we have seen how Mrs. Kyeni did comprehension discussion questions after each paragraph; however, sometimes like in the extract below she did comprehension discussion questions after the reading of the entire passage. When the comprehension discussion questions were done at the end of the passage, there seemed to be a real dialogue going on in the classroom. In the following extract, Chilumo and his sister Sidi are traveling from the city to the village to see their grandparents and cousins. This lesson exemplifies a dialogically organized instruction (Nystrand, 1997, 2006). A dialogically organized instruction promotes students’ voices in the classroom, which in return makes the classroom ­learner-­centered. In this classroom the dialogically organized instruction was made possible by a teacher who understood her students’ Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978) and pushed them to the next level of development. Please note that this part of the lesson only shows the discussion of comprehension questions. Extract 3 01 T: 02 Yu: 03 T:

Where did Chilumo and Sidi get their bus from? Yusuf. In the bus station. Very good. That shows you don’t get a bus from anywhere. You get it from the bus station. What are the uses of a wheelbarrow? [Different students give answers randomly]

3  THE ENACTED ENGLISH READING CURRICULUM 

04 S1: 05 Kalu: 06 S2: 07 S3: 08 S4: 09 T:

65

To carry things. Carry big bottles. Can be used to carry jerry cans. You can use it to carry soil. It is used to carry cement. Very good. Wheelbarrows are used to carry luggage. How do people travel in your place? How do they travel? 10 Ciru: Some travel with their private cars. 11 Juma: Others use train. 12 T: Is there a railway station here? 13 Kalu: No 14 T: How else do people travel in your place? 15 S5: Walking. 16 Jabali: Use your bicycle. 17 Kalu: Motorcycle. 18 Yusuf: Tuk tuk. 19 Juma: Our car. 20 T: Very good everybody. Where would you like to go next? 21 Subira: I would like to go to Mombasa. 22 T: Why? 23 Su: We are going to Laikipia county. My mother said we will go to Laikipia so as to learn how to farm. 24 Kalu: Go to America. 25 T: Why? 26 Ka: I Want to ice skate and go to see penguins. 27 T: Ciru, where will you go next? 28 Ci: Mombasa. 29 T: Why? 30 Ci: I want to go and visit my cousin. 31 T: Lenana 32 Le: Go to America because my cousins are in America. 33 Dan: Dubai. To see my cousin. 34 Rehema: Go to Ethiopia because my aunt and cousin live there. 35 Jabali: When I close school, I will go to the gym first. 36 T: I want you to tell me where you will travel to. 37 Ja: I am going to Mombasa. I will go to swim at the pool and eat there when I close school. I won’t swim at the ocean because I am not a person who knows how to swim at big seas.

66 

E. M. LISANZA

This lesson captures a learner-centered classroom. The traditional mode of interaction (IRE) has been replaced by a dialogically organized instruction. The Nyika children have brought in their voices to the classroom. They are able to engage with the reading in a personal way. This has been made possible by the teacher asking open questions which induce higher-­ level thinking by moving experiences in the story from what the students see on the paper to what they can imagine (National Association for the Education of Young Children-NAEYC, 2019). From the students’ conversations (see turns 22–35), we know that they would like to travel to different places during holidays. These places include Mombasa, the Kenyan coastal city where many people go for vacation because of its beautiful beaches; America because they have family there or simply because they want to ice skate and see penguins [however, Kalu may be disappointed when he gets to America and there are no penguins!]; Dubai and Ethiopia because they have family members there; or visit the countryside because they would like to learn about farming. As readers we get to know who these children are. These children have family members spread across the globe. The words in the book have been lifted from the pages of the book. According to the dialogic view (Bakhtin, 1981), the children borrowed words in the book to be their own. As mentioned, this was made possible by a teacher who knew her students’ Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978). She scaffolded her students’ knowledge to the next level of development. She questioned them why they wanted to visit the places they mentioned, and it was through that as readers, that we get to know of their abilities with language. The children and their teacher are negotiating meaning. Drawing from the sociogenesis theory, which is a part of sociocultural theory, cognitive growth is more likely when a child is required to explain and elaborate (Brown & Palincsar, 1989). This is exactly what Ms. Tina did. She pushed her pupils to explain and also elaborate (see turns 22–36). Besides asking them why they will travel to different places, she also asked them the different forms of travel in their region. These include personal cars, bicycles, motorcycles, train, walking and tuk tuk (a three-wheeled car) (see turns 14–19). So, it turns out these children are well-informed of the means of transport which surrounds them. Also, as readers we notice that the city of Nairobi is not different from other cities of the world. There are different modes of travel. Through the classroom talk we get to learn about the city of the Nyika children and more importantly their identities and plans.

3  THE ENACTED ENGLISH READING CURRICULUM 

67

Therefore, the talk which accompanies reading text is as crucial as the text itself (Lisanza, 2014). And as Alexander (2000) puts it, “The talk that takes place between teacher and pupil is not merely a vehicle for the exchange of information. It is a vital tool of learning” (p. 185). Hence, promotion of talk while reading is crucial. This talk not only gives agency to the children as they read but also extends their language abilities (Cazden, 2001). Talk builds children’s reading comprehension and vocabulary. For example, the text only gave one use of a wheelbarrow. It stated “Their cousin is carrying their bags. He is carrying them on a wheelbarrow.” The teacher used the text to promote talk in the classroom by asking the children, “What are the uses of a wheelbarrow?” and the students gave random answers (see turns 04–08), “carry things, carry big bottles, carry jerry cans, carry soil, and carry cement.” This was a good example of dialogically organized instruction. Where the teacher just asked the question and students took turns from 04 to 08 without any teacher’s interference. The same happened when the teacher asked about means of travel in their place. The students took turns from turn 10 to turn 19. In this classroom, as already mentioned, the teacher’s voice is not the only voice, but one of the voices in the classroom. By recognizing students’ voices in the classroom, this gives students agency in their learning. Not only did the children at Nyika read stories from textbooks and storybooks, but they also did what was referred to as “E-learning” at the school. This was simply reading stories from tablets. The E-learning reading was done the same way reading was done from the textbooks and storybooks. The students were nominated to read a number of sentences, which was followed or accompanied by comprehension questions and vocabulary instruction. Besides students at Nyika primary school had an opportunity to do independent reading during lunch time or in between lessons; however, the teacher was not in control. They read different storybooks. This independent reading will be discussed in Chap. 5 because from my analysis this was a child-controlled process; however, the teacher encouraged students in between the lessons or during lunch break to read. This was a good way to improve children’s reading skills and also to keep them occupied during lesson transitions. To conclude this chapter, it is evident that, on the one hand, Nyika primary school children had more resources compared to the children in Mutituni primary school. They had enough textbooks, storybooks and tablets. Each child had his/her textbook, storybook or tablet. There was

68 

E. M. LISANZA

no sharing of learning materials. The children had enough room in the classroom as well. They could move freely and so was the teacher. They also had the language of instruction at their disposal. They were not struggling with English. Mutituni children, on the other hand, had scarcity of resources. They had to share textbooks in a crowded classroom. They did not have storybooks or tablets. They relied heavily on the textbook and blackboard. Most of vocabulary words were written on blackboard. Additionally, they did not read any storybooks. The availability of literacy materials, physical setting of the classroom and the English-only policy played a major role in how reading was enacted in these two classrooms. Therefore, social or physical contexts influenced classroom practices during reading. Also, English was really foreign to the Mutituni children. Thus, the emphasis on the use of English in both schools was to the disadvantage of the Mutituni children because they did not speak English. However, it was an advantage to the Nyika children. As mentioned earlier, the children at Nyika primary school spoke English and therefore they were able to engage with the readings because the language of the textbook was the language of their homes. Thus, from a sociocultural view, the Mutituni children were  linguistically disadvantaged (Hymes, 1972). As a result of English-only policy in both schools, we have noticed there was a clear distinction on how reading was enacted in the two settings. At Mutituni primary school the children recited readings while the children at Nyika brought their voices in the reading lessons. There were conversations and dialogues in the Nyika classroom during reading lessons while there were no dialogues in the Mutituni classroom. The teacher’s voice and that of the students engaged each other in the Nyika classroom, and hence a dialogue took place. A dialogue is a “special sort of interaction” (Morson & Emerson, 1990, p. 49). From what we have observed in the Nyika classroom, indeed there was a “special sort of interaction” between the teacher and her pupils. Although as a result of the language policy, the classroom context and availability of resources led to differences in reading practices in the two schools, the two schools have great strengths which I would like to enlighten now. To start with, the two teachers knew their students’ strengths. They were able to establish their students’ capabilities by paying attention to their students’ performance in class. The teacher at Mutituni primary school knew most of her students still needed help with reading words (this is something she always told me almost after every English lesson), she provided them the strategy for reading words. She did this by

3  THE ENACTED ENGLISH READING CURRICULUM 

69

having phonics instruction integrated in her reading lessons. She also did direct vocabulary instruction. The teacher at Nyika primary school understood her children’s zone of proximal development very well and this why she asked follow-up questions, for example. Therefore, as language teachers, it is important to establish our students’ strengths in reading so that we maximize their potential and take them to the next level of performance. If our students are still struggling with reading, we have to drill phonics; however, we have to do this in meaningful contexts. In addition, in the classroom there is a big need to encourage dialogues. Encourage students’ voices to be heard as they connect with the reading in a personal way. This was well illustrated by the Nyika primary school teacher, Ms. Tina. Also, there is need to encourage students to talk to each other during readings. We need more student-­ student dialogues not just teacher-student(s) conversations. This helps students to know how to navigate the world with peers not just with authorities like teachers. Furthermore, independent reading must be encouraged in and outside the classroom because our goal as teachers is to have our students become independent readers so that they can read for entertainment and information as the Kenyan national syllabus states. This cannot be achieved without encouraging students to read stories on their own. Thus, each classroom must have a classroom library like the Nyika classroom; a collection of attractive stories that provide pupils with immediate access to reading. Moreover, Nyika primary school debunks claims made by many observers in African classrooms and in particular in Kenya (e.g., Pontefract & Hardman, 2005; Sifuna, 1997) concerning recitation practices in African classrooms. They have claimed that the practice originates from the African respect for tradition and authority. As we have seen, even though the Nyika children respect their teacher, they operate at their own frame of reference. They ask questions and contribute to their learning. They do not sit down and wait to be “fed” with knowledge by their teacher. The reason why many African classrooms fall back to recitation as we saw with the Mutituni classroom is because of the language challenge (see also Arthur, 2001; Bunyi, 2001; Lisanza, 2011). The pupils communicate minimally in English language. Finally, IRE interaction pattern as many scholars such as Cazden (2001) have observed can be used effectively by probing further, allowing students to ask questions, and also students taking turns after each other without the teacher’s interference like we saw in some instances at Nyika primary school. Let us now see how written language was facilitated in the two schools.

70 

E. M. LISANZA

References Alexander, R. J. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. UK: Blackwell Publishers. Arthur, J. (2001). Codeswitching and collusion: Classroom interaction in Botswana primary schools. In M. Heller & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 57–76). London: Ablex. Bagwasi, M. M. (2017). A critique of Botswana’s language policy from a translanguaging perspective. Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(2), 199–214. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In C.  Emersion & M.  Holquist (Eds.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.  Bakhtin (pp.  259–422). Austin: University of Texas Press. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp.  393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bunyi, G. W. (2001). Language and education inequalities in Kenya. In M. Martin-­ Jones & M. Heller (Eds.), Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 77–100). London: Ablex. Carnine, D.  W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E.  J., & Tarver, S.  G. (2010). Direct instruction reading (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Merrill. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse. Cunningham, J. (2017). What really matters in teaching phonics today: Laying a foundation for reading. Curriculum Associates, LLC. Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Hymes, D. (1972 [2001]). On communicative competence. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 53–73). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kenya Institute of Education. (2006). English primary syllabus. Nairobi: KIE. Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012a). Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655–670. Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012b). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641–654. Lisanza, E. M. (2011). What does it mean to learn oral and written English language: A case study of a rural Kenyan classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL.

3  THE ENACTED ENGLISH READING CURRICULUM 

71

Lisanza, E. M. (2014). Dialogic instruction and learning: The case of one Kiswahili classroom. Language, Culture, & Curriculum, 27, 121–135. Morson, G., & Emerson, C. (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of prosaic. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2019). Learning to read and write: What research reveals. Retrieved from https://www. readingrockets.org/article/learning-read-and-write-what-research-reveals Nystrand, M. (1997). Dialogic instruction: When recitation becomes conversation. In M. Nystrand et al. (Eds.), Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom (pp. 1–29). NY: Teachers College Press. Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 292–411. Phillips, B. M., Menchetti, J. C., & Lonigan, C. (2008). Successful phonological awareness instruction with preschool children: Lessons from the classroom. Topics Early Childhood Special Education, 28(1), 3–17. Pontefract, C., & Hardman, F. (2005). The discourse of classroom interaction in Kenyan primary schools. Comparative Education, 41(1), 87–106. Republic of Kenya. (2017). Basic education curriculum framework. Nairobi: KICD. Sifuna, D. (1997). The quality of primary education in Kenya: Some issues. In K. Watson, C. Modgil, & S. Modgil (Eds.), Educational dilemmas: Debate and diversity, quality in education (Vol. 4). London: Cassell. Tusome Teacher’s English Guide for Class 2. (2016). Nairobi: Ministry of Education. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

CHAPTER 4

The Enacted Writing Curriculum

This chapter focuses on the official writing curriculum at Mutituni and Nyika primary schools. The writing practices in both schools were very similar apart from copying words off board. This was very common at Mutituni primary school because of the shortage of literacy materials. The common writing practices in both settings included responding to grammar questions from the textbooks, filling blanks, dictation of words from the teacher, and handwriting. Learning to write in both contexts was a construction of a product. However, it is important to note that these writing practices were in sync with the national curriculum (National Syllabus, 2006), whose specific writing objectives for grade two include: • writing words • writing simple sentences • drawing objects and labelling them • writing answers to comprehension questions • writing neatly and legibly The Tusome literacy program’s writing objectives were no different from the national syllabus’s objectives. In addition, in both schools the writing activities were often embedded in reading lessons. However, sometimes there were grammar drills, which were done for practice purposes. Also, even though at the beginning of my observation at Nyika primary school handwriting was embedded in other © The Author(s) 2020 E. M. Lisanza, The Multivoices of Kenyan Primary School Children Learning to Read and Write, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38110-3_4

73

74 

E. M. LISANZA

writing activities, it was later drilled as an independent activity (as well as being integrated with other writing practices) and the students were given handwriting exercise books. This happened after the teacher realized the students had a big challenge with writing neatly. The teacher used her assessment to change the handwriting instruction. As a result of the similarities in the writing activities in both schools, most of the examples in this chapter will be drawn from Nyika primary school. However, the example on copying words off board will be drawn from Mutituni primary school.

Writing Practices at Nyika Primary School As mentioned earlier, often writing practices were embedded in reading practices. For illustration, let us join Ms. Tina and her class as they read and see how a writing activity of dictation was embedded in the reading lesson. In this lesson the class is reading a story titled “In the Farm.” This story is about different farmers doing different activities in the farm, for example, weeding, digging, planting and watering seedlings, feeding animals, cutting hedges, and ploughing. Extract 1 01 T:

02 SS: 03 Kalu:

We are going to read a story called “In the Farm” from page 120. Kalu and Subira will read the first paragraph. First, let’s read the words [this is the vocabulary list for this reading]. [She reads and the students repeat after her. Farm, tractor, vegetable, cabbage, plant, water, dig, weed, carrot etc.] [Read chorally after the teacher] [Reads] This is Cheptoo. [The sentence reads as follows: She has grown cabbages; however, Kalu read the sentence as follows:] She was grown cabbages.

04 T and some students: Has 05 Kalu: [Repeats] She has grown cabbages [and reads three more sentences]. 06 T: Subira, read the next three sentences. 07 Su: [Reads]. 08 T: Maria, read the next three sentences. 09 Ma: [Reads] 10 T: Rino, read the next three sentences. 11 Ri: [Reads]

4  THE ENACTED WRITING CURRICULUM 

12 T: 13 SS: 14 Subira:

75

[Asks passage questions] [They answer the questions.] [After answering the passage questions] We want to plant cash crops and sell eggs [in their rural home]. 15 S1: We sell eggs from our chicken. 16 T: Okay. It is dictation time. Write 1–12. Number 1, “slasher.” Once you are done, raise your hand up. 17 SS: [Writing; once they are done, they raise their hands up.] 18 T: Write the word “plough.” 19 SS: [Some] What? 20 T: Plough 21 SS: [Raise their hands when done] 22 T: Number 3, cabbage 23 SS: [Raise their hands when done] 24 T: Number 4, tractor 25 Kadogo: mmmh? 26 T: Number 4, tractor. Number 5, farm 27 SS: [Write and raise their hands] 28 T: Number 6, vegetable 29 SS: [Write and raise their hands] 30 T: Vegetable. Number 7, factory 31 SS: [Write and raise their hands up] 32 T: Can you read from number 1 to 7? 33 SS: [They read] slasher, plough, cabbage, tractor, farm, vegetable, factory. 34 T: Poverty 35 SS: What? 36 T: Poverty 37 SS: [Some raise their hands up] 38 T: Number 9, beautiful 39 SS: [Write and raise their hands up] 40 Kalu: Excuse me, teacher, number 8 you said? 41 T: Poverty. Number 10, bright. [Said in Swahili] Nimesema (I have said) bright, not “blight.” Number 11, company. The last one is rectangle. Let’s read from the first word. 42 SS: [Read 1–12] slasher, plough, cabbage, tractor, farm, vegetable, factory, poverty, beautiful, bright, company. 43 T: Okay! Bring your books. [Students stand up to take their books for grading.]

76 

E. M. LISANZA

It is important to point out that all the twelve words dictated were part of the vocabulary list in the reading. Ms. Tina informed me that she gave dictation work to reinforce the vocabulary covered in the reading and also spelling skills. As observed in the reading portion of the lesson (i.e., from turn 02 to 11), if a student misread any word in the reading, the teacher and the other students read the word out for the student and it was a general rule that the student who misread the word would reread the whole sentence. In the writing part of the lesson (i.e., from turn 16 to 41), that is, the dictation part, if a student does not hear the word clearly, he or she requests the teacher to repeat it. As mentioned, writing was embedded in reading, and as Vygotsky observed many years ago, “The mechanics of reading what is written are so emphasized that they overshadow written language” (1978, p. 105). In this lesson reading is emphasized more than the dictation itself. Without this reading, chances are that this writing would not have taken place because the words in the dictation exercise would have been done out of context, which would make the whole exercise meaningless to the children. For vocabulary to have an impact, it is important to be done in context. Additionally, it was a norm for the teacher from time to time during the dictation exercise to ask the students to read out the dictated words (see turns 32 and 41). This is a clear indication that reading and writing cannot be divorced from each other. They inform and support each other. Moreover, in turn 41 the teacher translanguages to Swahili. As already mentioned, this shows that the languages that a multilingual speaker speaks are tools which can be used at any time during his or her conversation. Therefore, the teacher has used Swahili to emphasize to the children that the word in question is “bright,” not “blight.” For illustration of what the children wrote down, see Kalu’s work below (Fig. 4.1). Kalu has misspelled “poverty” and “beautiful,” of which he did corrections. Also, he has misspelled “company”; however, the teacher missed it. These errors reveal the fact that children are hypothesizing with language; they are trying to figure out what is going on. For example, “povaty” shows greater letter-sound correspondence. As observed from Kalu’s writing, doing corrections forms an important part of any writing process. Even professional writers go through their written drafts to fix any mistakes. This is a good practice to instill in children. This is a practice which was also emphasized by Ms. Tina even during the dictation exercise itself. This will be discussed further in the next illustration.

4  THE ENACTED WRITING CURRICULUM 

77

Fig. 4.1  Kalu’s dictation 1

In the following lesson, I will provide another example on dictation to illustrate that not only was writing and reading intertwined in this classroom, so was interpretive listening. Also, this lesson illustrates how handwriting was integrated into the writing exercise. This spelling exercise came after the reading titled “Hare’s Friends.” In the story, Hare and Elephant were great friends, and one day Hare invited his friend Elephant to come and visit him. Elephant requested if he could bring his two friends, Tortoise and Giraffe, along. Hare agreed to Elephant’s request. However, when they got to Hare’s house, Elephant and Giraffe could not enter Hare’s house because it was very small. Elephant requested Tortoise to enter the house, eat his share and then bring out Elephant’s and Giraffe’s shares. However, Tortoise went in and ate all the food without sharing. The story ended as follows: “From that day, Elephant and Giraffe are not Tortoise’s friends anymore.” This was a story with a moral. Let us see part of this classroom interaction shortly before the writing exercise started.

78 

E. M. LISANZA

Extract 2a 01 T: Are Tortoise and Elephant friends? 02 S: No. 03 Rehema: When I was in the other school there was a student who didn’t like sharing. 04 Kalu: If we don’t share that is not good. 05 Subira: We cannot share personal items. 06 T: Yes, we can’t share personal items, but we are talking about food. 07 Jabali: Is a comb a personal item? 08 Subira: Yes. 09 T: Is a comb a personal item? 10 SS: Yes. In turn 01 it is not by coincidence that Ms. Tina asks the children if Tortoise and Elephant are friends. She wants to capture the moral of the story, which was about sharing. In turn 02 all the children answer that the two animals are not friends. In turn 03 Rehema reports about a student in her former school who did not like sharing, and immediately in turn 04 Kalu acknowledges the moral of the story by saying, “If we do not share that is not good.” However, Subira in turn 05 reminds her peers that they cannot share personal items. In 06 Ms. Tina reclaims a turn to emphasize the moral of the story that they cannot share personal items; however, they have to share food. I interpreted the reason she stepped in the conversation was that this was a teaching moment; otherwise the moral of the story could have been missed. The teacher’s response and Subira’s comment got Jabali wondering in turn 07 if a comb is a personal item or not. In turn 08 Subira, without mixing her words, tells Jabali that a comb is a personal item. However, in turn 09 Ms. Tina revoices Jabali’s question to involve all the children, and they all agree in turn 10 that a comb is a personal item. As noted in this interaction, sharing is a virtue not only in African societies but across many societies. This is a virtue which the children must have. In this interaction, there is a dialogue going on between the children and their teacher and also among the children (see turns 03–05 and turns 07–10). For instance, from turn 08 to turn 10 Ms. Tina let the children solve the question whether a comb is a personal item or not. Through this the teacher gave voice to the children. Before we turn to the writing part of the lesson, one thing which stands out from Extract 2a, and this was

4  THE ENACTED WRITING CURRICULUM 

79

also observed in Chap. 3, is that talk and reading cannot be separated. They enrich each other. And as we will see in the following extract, ­reading and writing cannot be separated because they inform each other. However, this does not mean that reading should overshadow writing. Writing should be given its proper place in the curriculum. Also, it is important to remind the reader that the dictated words were part of the vocabulary list of the reading. Extract 2b 01 T:

Take out your English exercise book and write down the following words. 02 Wafula: Can we skip lines? 03 T: Yes, you can’t write congested work. [Dictates] One, friend 04 SS: [Writing] 05 T: Two, expensive. Don’t look at your friend’s work. Three, dust. 06 S1: Teacher, dust? 07 T: Yes, dust, number 3. 08 Juma: Can you read number 1? 09 T: Number 1, friend. Number 4, children 10 Juma: [To his desk mate] I have written number 4. 11 Subira: Excuse me, teacher, some people are copying over there. 12 T: [Ignores Subira] Number 5, elephant 13 T: Number 6, hungry 14 Juma: Number 5? 15 T: [To Juma] It’s like you are not with us. Pay attention. 16 Rehema: My pencil is writing doubles. 17 T: Next, enter 18 Yusufu: That’s very easy. 19 T: That’s good. 20 Kalu: Even expensive [Says in Swahili] si [I confirm] I knew. 21 T: That’s very good. Number 8, together. Number 9, visitor. Number 10, compound 22 Jabali: That’s very easy. 23 T: Can you read from the first word to the last one? 24 SS: [All read chorally from the first to the last word] Friend, expensive, dust, children, elephant, hungry, enter, together, visitor, compound.

80 

E. M. LISANZA

25 T:

Check your work carefully; check if you’ve written right spellings and that your handwriting is clear. Check if you’ve skipped lines. 26 SS: [Going through their work] 27 T: Have you checked your work? Have you checked your handwriting? 28 SS: Yes! 29 T: Then majestically bring your book. [Students take their books to the teacher.] The mechanics of good handwriting are emphasized by the teacher in turn 03 after a student asks her in turn 02 if they are supposed to skip a line. From turn 04 to 22 the children are writing down the dictated words. In turn 23 Ms. Tina instructs the children to read out the dictated words. In turn 24 the children read chorally. In turns 25 and 27 Ms. Tina instructs the children to check their work, in other words, to edit their work, and also, she emphasizes on the mechanics of the written product (i.e., good handwriting and spacing of words on paper). In turn 26 the children are editing their work. Therefore, Ms. Tina is mentoring her students to be good spellers. To be a good speller, one has to edit his or her written work and also one has to be a good listener. This is why she instructs Juma in turn 15 to pay attention. Juma had asked Ms. Tina to repeat number 1 (see turn 08) and also number 5 (see turn 14). Juma was not paying attention but was busy speaking to his desk mate (see turn 10) and therefore as the teacher was dictating the fifth word, he missed it. Notice when Juma asked Ms. Tina to repeat number 1 that was okay and she repeated the word without any question as we saw in the previous extract; however, when Juma requested Ms. Tina to repeat for a second time that was enough indication he was not paying attention. Of course, as mentioned, he was talking to his desk mate. Additionally, to be a good speller one also has to be a good reader. This is why Ms. Tina instructs the children to read all the words dictated (see turn 23). More importantly, Ms. Tina valued good handwriting because bad handwriting had consequences when it came to the national exam. In one of our daily conversations, she informed me that she had seen students fail national exam essays (she was one of the national examiners), not because they didn’t know the information, but because the handwriting was poor. Usually the examiners do not have time to waste on illegible essays. This is because of the big number of students taking national exams. She therefore wanted her students to develop

4  THE ENACTED WRITING CURRICULUM 

81

the habit of writing neatly and legibly from that tender age. Also, this is in line with the national curriculum that states that the pupils in grade two should write neatly and legibly. Additionally, many scholars have observed that handwriting instruction helps pupils communicate effectively (NAEYC, 2019). Moreover, during writing lessons, Ms. Tina allowed the children’s voices to be heard so long as they were not disruptive to the class. For example, when Yusufu in turn 18 says “That’s easy,” she acknowledges his voice by saying “That’s good” in turn 19. As already mentioned, Ms. Tina never silenced her pupils. She let them be children in her class. They were free to talk to her and to each other, but they always knew the boundaries; they never misbehaved. Subira informs the teacher in turn 11 that some students are copying words from the charts on the classroom walls. Ms. Tina seems to ignore Subira for a good reason. As it has been observed elsewhere (e.g., Samway, 2006), it is normal for pupils to rely on available vocabulary on the classroom walls. As a matter of fact, it is meant to be a resource for language learning. However, note that in turn 05 she does not want them to copy from each other. To Ms. Tina this was treated as cheating. Furthermore, Kalu translanguages to Swahili in turn 20 just as Ms. Tina did in Extract 1; as already mentioned, this is an indication that to a bilingual speaker the languages she or he speaks can be utilized at any time. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, the languages divide does not exist to a bilingual speaker. For illustration of what the children did, see Kalu’s written work below (Fig. 4.2). In turn 18 Yusufu said the spelling of the word “enter” is very easy, and Kalu followed suit in turn 20 by acknowledging that the word “expensive” is very easy too. As can be seen from his written work, he misspelled the word “expensive” as “espesive.” As mentioned earlier, children are language hypothesizers, and one thing I appreciated these children for is the confidence they had as they wrote down spellings. No wonder even though Kalu had misspelled the word “expensive,” he was very confident he had it right till he was proven otherwise. That is the kind of confidence that English children writers must have because errors are sources of learning. Filling of gaps was another writing activity in both classrooms. In the following lesson the students are doing an exercise on different professions. Let us join Ms. Tina with her pupils as they talk about different professions. This work was done the following day after the children did the reading “In the Farm” (see Extract 1). As mentioned, this reading focused on the work done by different farmers, for example, growing vegetables, weeding, digging, planting, feeding animals, and so forth.

82 

E. M. LISANZA

Fig. 4.2  Kalu’s dictation 2

Extract 3 01 T: 02 Subira: 03 T:

Today we are going to talk about people’s work. What is my work? A teacher, a teacher teaches pupils. What is the work of a carpenter?

4  THE ENACTED WRITING CURRICULUM 

04 S2: 05 T: 06 S3: 07 T: 08 S4: 09 Kalu: 10 T:

83

Makes things from wood. What is the work of a farmer? A farmer’s work is to farm. What is to farm? The work of a farmer is to grow crops. Even a farmer keeps livestock. Today I want to give you work to do about people and their work. May I give you some work about people and their work? 11 SS: Yes. 12 T: You have to know the work of your mother and father. 13 Jabali: My father is a businessman. 14 Subira: Teacher, a person who makes things out of metal is called? 15 T: He is called a blacksmith. 16 Yusufu: [Talking to Jabali and Ciru] My father is an agent. 17 Jabali: Who is an agent? 18 Yusufu: He represents his company. 19 T: [Writing sentences on the board] 20 SS: [Some] Teacher, you have written “person who prepares meals is called a __________ 21 Ciru: Start with a. 22 Subira: It’s okay. 23 Teacher: [Quietly inserts the missing article] 24 Jabali: [To Yusufu] And don’t copy. 25 Yusufu: From where? 26 Jabali: From there [points to the chart on “people and their work”] 27 Yusufu: [Smiles to Jabali] [The children are doing the following board work.] . A person who prepares meals is called a……………………. 1 2. A……………teaches children. 3. A person who brings letters is called a……………. 4. A………………is a person who looks after sick people. 5. A…………….drives a car or a bus. 6. A person who treats sick people is called……………. 7. A……….sells in a shop.

84 

E. M. LISANZA

In this extract, in turn 01 Ms. Tina introduces the topic of the day and asks the children about her profession. In other words, she is preteaching writing. In turn 02 not only does Subira give Ms. Tina’s profession as a teacher, but she also explains that the work of a teacher is to teach pupils. In turn 03 Ms. Tina initiates another question, about a carpenter’s work. In turn 04 a student responds. In 05 the teacher initiates another question, about a farmer’s work. In turn 06 a student responds that “a farmer’s work is to farm.” However, this is too general, and the teacher probes the students further by asking in turn 07 “What is to farm?” The students’ interpretation of the question is that the teacher wants to know exactly what a farmer does, and in turns 08 and 09, S4 and Kalu give the work of a farmer as growing crops and keeping livestock, respectively. So far from turns 01 to 06 the IRE (Initiation Response Evaluation) interaction pattern is abbreviated to only two steps: IR (Initiation Response); however, from turn 07 to 09, the teacher, in the third slot instead of evaluating or giving feedback, wants the students to elaborate on the meaning of “to farm.” Therefore, she is using the Feedback/Evaluate slot to engage the students in generating more language. As mentioned, this is a strategy which could be used to help students speak more in class. In turn 10 the teacher reminds the students of the lesson’s objective (i.e., people’s work) so that they know where she is taking them. In the same turn she is exciting the children about the writing exercise by asking them if she could give them the writing exercise. In turn 11 all the pupils respond in unison “yes.” In turn 12 she also tells the students they have to know their parents’ professions. This was a good idea for the children to connect personally with the writing exercise. Because of Ms. Tina’s instruction to the children about knowing their parents’ work, in turn 13 Jabali tells the entire class that his father is a businessman. And in turn 14 Subira asks Ms. Tina about the name of a person who makes things out of metal. Ms. Tina tells her that that person is called a blacksmith. Thus, it is not only the teacher who is initiating questions but the pupils as well. From turn 16 to 18 two pupils Jabali and Yusufu are talking to each other. Yusufu tells Ciru and Jabali that his father is an agent, and Jabali asks Yusufu what an agent means. Yusufu tells him that “he represents his company.” Moreover, these children are not copying sentences blindly and mindlessly; they are paying attention to the English grammar rules, and this is why in turns 20 and 21 the students are bringing to the teacher’s attention of the missing article “a” at the beginning of the sentence “person who prepares meals is called a …”

4  THE ENACTED WRITING CURRICULUM 

85

Although this writing exercise was meant to be just a filling of blanks exercise (quietly), it has triggered talk among the children. The children have an opportunity to talk about the work of their parents. Children are like a box full of treasure; unless you open the box, you will never see what is inside the box. The opportunity to do an exercise on people and their professions gave the children a space to talk to each other about their parents’ work. For example, we know that Yusufu’s father is an agent of a company and he knows exactly who an agent is. In fact, it is an opportunity for his two peers to learn who an agent is. Jabali also informs his peers that his father is a businessman. Nevertheless, I want to emphasize the fact that these children are able to contribute so successfully to the classroom conversations because they are fluent English speakers. The language of instruction is a resource which is available to them. Additionally, from the above lesson, IRE interaction patterns can be enriched by letting students generate language through probing them to expand their responses and also giving students room to initiate questions. The children also did grammar exercises as part of their writing. As mentioned earlier, sometimes writing activities were simply given as drilling exercises and therefore not embedded in the reading lessons. For instance, in the following lesson, as part of their writing practice, the children learned about compound words and also did board work on this. Extract 4 01 T: 02 SS: 03 T: 04 SS: 05 T: 06 SS: 07 T: 08 SS: 09 T:

Good morning, children. Good morning, teacher. [Name deleted] How are you? Fine, thank you, teacher. [Name deleted] Are you good? Yes, teacher. [Name deleted] Sit down. Thank you, teacher. [Name deleted]. Today we are going to talk about double words, a word which has two words in one. 10 Juma: We did this in Pre-unit. 11 Jabali: That was long time ago. We have forgotten. 12 T: This is standard two, and we will do this. A word like football, [gives its Swahili equivalent] kandanda has two words, foot and ball. What do we call this? [pointing to the blackboard] 13 SS: Blackboard

86 

E. M. LISANZA

14 T: 15 Kalu: 16 T:

Yes. You can say caterpillar. You can’t split all the long words. It’s not making any sense. The double words if split must make sense. 17 Ciru: We can split cater and pillar. 18 T: No. For example, splitting classroom makes two meaningful words, class plus room. 19 Jabali: Now I remember, we did this in Pre-unit. 20 T: Now do the following exercise. Remember, good handwriting. We have decided to do good handwriting. 21 SS: [The children are doing the following exercise from the blackboard.] Separate Words T: [Copied the following words from one of the textbooks. As mentioned, Ms. Tina had several reference books.] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Sunset = ______________ + _____________________ Toothbrush = ______________ + _____________________ Headteacher = ______________ + _____________________ Bedroom = ______________ + _____________________ Teatime = ______________ + _____________________ Newspaper = ______________ + _____________________ Keychain = ______________ + _____________________ Sometime = ______________ + _____________________ Shopkeeper = ______________ + _____________________ Armchair = ______________ + _____________________

22 Ciru: [Pointing to number 10] What is this? 23 T: Armchair 24 Jabali: I know what an armchair is. When people are disabled, they use it. 25 T: That’s a wheelchair. I will show you a picture of a wheelchair [she opens one of the books and shows them a picture of a wheelchair]. 26 SS: [The children are doing the writing exercise quietly. However, after some time, Dan turns to Jabali and asks him] 27 Dan: You are number? 28 Jabali: [Points to number 8] [After a short while all the students are done with the exercise and they hand over their exercise books to their teacher for grading.]

4  THE ENACTED WRITING CURRICULUM 

87

This lesson gives us a glimpse of how the first lesson of the day started at Nyika primary school. It started with greetings, followed by the introduction of the first lesson of the day (see turns 01–09). In turn 10 Juma says that they did compound words in Pre-unit. In turn 11 Jabali states that was a long time ago and that they have forgotten. However, Ms. Tina tells the pupils this exercise has to be done. After giving the first example (i.e., football and also giving its equivalent in Swahili: kandanda), in turn 12 she immediately involves her students in the learning process through ignition of their prior knowledge. She asks the students to name “blackboard” by pointing at it. The reference of “blackboard” made sense to the pupils and allowed them to connect with the topic. As language teachers, if we do not tap the prior knowledge of the students, we may become advocates of “Banking education” (Freire, 1970), which treats pupils as if they are empty vessels ready to be filled with teachers’ knowledge—basically, assuming that the pupils have very little to offer in their learning. However, as we have seen so far, the children at Nyika primary school were not empty vessels; they had a lot to offer in the classroom learning and conversations. As a matter of fact, when the teacher introduced the topic, immediately Kalu gives an example of a compound word “caterpillar” in turn 15, which turns out to be not a compound word (see turns 16 and 18). In turn 17 Ciru is determined to show that “caterpillar” is really a compound word because it can be split into two words “cater” and “pillar”; however, the teacher tells the students the two words after splitting must be meaningful. These children’s voices are loud and clear. They are creating meaning with their teacher. Also, they are not just splitting words for the sake of splitting; if they don’t understand any meaning of a word, they ask their teacher. For instance, Ciru asks the teacher for the meaning of armchair in turn 22. How important it was for Ciru to ask this question, because as it turns out, Jabali was confusing wheelchair with armchair (see turn 24). The teacher showed the students how a wheelchair looks like. This example illustrates the place of illustrations (e.g., pictures) in young children’s literacy and language development. It is a resource which supports written and spoken language. After this, the pupils continued with their writing exercise and resumed their low-voiced talk as they wrote, for example, finding out from each other what number they were in (e.g., see turns 27 and 28). As observed in this lesson, language learning is a spiral and a repetitive process. As the two children, Juma and Jabali, in turns 10 and 19, respectively, mention that they had learned compound words in Pre-unit, it is

88 

E. M. LISANZA

always important to spiral and repeat language forms. This is because spiraling of knowledge is a good way of tapping prior knowledge, and definitely more practice never hurts. Language teachers must look for ways to spiral language and tap the prior knowledge of the children. Ms. Tina translanguaging into Swahili in turn 12 is simply for the sake of emphasis, just to emphasize to the children what she is talking about. She is tapping the children’s multilingual abilities. As mentioned earlier, later in the term Ms. Tina taught handwriting as a drilling exercise so that the students could improve their handwriting. However, in the Mutituni classroom handwriting was not drilled. It was intertwined with other writing activities (see Extract 5). As mentioned, the Mutituni classroom, among the other writing activities like the ones already seen in the Nyika classroom, often copied words off the blackboard. In the following example they are copying vocabulary words in their exercise books. After the reading and attempting to answer questions about the new cow (see Chap. 3), the teacher wrote the following words on the blackboard and asked students to copy and also draw a cow and a sheep. To remind the reader, copying/writing of words and drawing of objects were one of the national curriculum requirements (National Syllabus, 2006). Extract 5 [The teacher copied the following words on the blackboard and then told the children to copy them in their exercise books. The words were:] 1. Worker 2. Farmer 3. Driver 4. Sing 5. Song 6. Wings 7. Seller 8. Richer 9. Buyer 10. Leader [The teacher also instructed the students to draw a cow and a sheep.] Draw 1. Cow 2. Sheep

4  THE ENACTED WRITING CURRICULUM 

89

01 SS: [Copying words] 02 T: And a very good handwriting 03 S1: [Spoke in Swahili and Kikamba] Kambua anaandika tuvili. (Kambua is writing very tiny words.) 04 T: [Questioned in Swahili and Kikamba] Nani anaandika tuvili? (Who is writing very tiny words?) 05 S1: Kambua. 06 T: Kambua, good handwriting. Sheep tumesema ni kondoo [gave the translation of sheep in Swahili as “kondoo”]. 07 SS: [As the children copy, some are quiet and others are talking in low tones, asking for erasers and sharpeners in Swahili.] 08 T: [Addressed the students who are talking in Swahili] Unatumia mdomo kuandika? (Are you using your mouth to write?) 09 SS: [Silence] 10 T: [Asks them in Swahili] Unataka nitumie hii? (Do you want me to use this?) [Showing a cane] In this classroom just like in the Nyika classroom, good handwriting was emphasized (see turns 02–06). So, looking at this extract, handwriting and copying exercises are interwoven. Although the teacher kept on emphasizing good handwriting to her pupils in every lesson, she never modeled how good handwriting looked like. Modeling is an important part of good teaching. Additionally, it is important to note that the classroom atmosphere in this classroom is very different from the Nyika one. There is not much pupils’ talk during writing activities (see turn 09). This is because the children would be threatened with a cane if they dared to speak during the writing activities (e.g., see turn 10). Mrs. Kyeni has a lot to learn from Ms. Tina. As discussed earlier, pupils should be given the opportunity to talk, because this supports their writing and language development. One thing that is notable from this classroom is the utilization of the children’s multilingualism. Both the teacher and the students employed their multilingual resources. They used Swahili and also Kikamba, the first language of the children (see turns 03, 04, 06, 08, and 10). Even though it was just one Kikamba word “tuvili” (very tiny) which was “smuggled” into the classroom (Lisanza, 2016), we get to know that these children know an extra language beyond Swahili. As readers we are left wondering what would have happened if the children were allowed to talk in Kikamba

90 

E. M. LISANZA

or Swahili during their writing activities. Looking at Nyika children we have an answer. The children would have an opportunity to grow their language skills in different ways. For illustration of what the children did, see Imani’s written work below (Fig. 4.3). Going back to the Nyika primary school, Ms. Tina kept on telling the students to write good handwriting; however, the students seemed not to know how a good handwriting looked like. She therefore started every morning with handwriting practice. This practice was quite transformative, the students started writing neatly. Before this handwriting drill had started, the previous day I had met with Kalu’s mother and she was concerned about her son’s handwriting because Kalu had told her that the teacher had told him his handwriting was not good. So, this handwriting business was making

Fig. 4.3  Imani’s copying off board and drawing

4  THE ENACTED WRITING CURRICULUM 

91

parents to be concerned as well. So, when I got to the classroom at 8:30 AM the following day after talking with Kalu’s mother, the children were doing handwriting. They had new exercise books labeled “Handwriting.” They were copying the following letters and words: Handwriting Aa Aa Aa Aa Words Friday Scales Paraffin Umbrella Feather Extract 6 01 T:

[As the children were copying and making sure their letters looked exactly like the teacher’s, the teacher said:] I am training you on how to write a good handwriting. Handwriting [said in Swahili] ninakufunza kuhusu mwandiko bora (I’m teaching you good handwriting). 02 Subira: Excuse me, teacher, is this handwriting subject? 03 T: There is no subject called handwriting. [Goes around to check on how the students are writing; gets to Kadogo and notices she is not starting the words with capital letters and says] When you start a sentence you have to start with a … [waiting for the children to complete the sentence] 04 SS: [Some] Capital letter. 05 Juma: Teacher, like this? [shows his capital letter F] 06 T: Yes. [Goes to Subira and speaks to her in English and Swahili] this r umepandisha sana (is too high). [Gets to Kalu and says] Your handwriting is good now. 07 Kalu: [Grins] Thank you, teacher. 08 Yusufu: [To Jabali] Seven plus seven is twelve. 09 Jabali: No, seven plus seven is fourteen. Twelve plus twelve is twenty-four (Fig. 4.4).

92 

E. M. LISANZA

Fig. 4.4  Kalu’s handwriting

Ms. Tina exhibits behaviors of an effective teacher (http://www.tellproject.org). She is attentive to her students’ performance in order to advance their learning. As a matter of fact, she had to redesign her curriculum in order to meet her students’ needs. Not only did she redesign her

4  THE ENACTED WRITING CURRICULUM 

93

curriculum, but she modeled good handwriting for her students. A teacher has to be a good model for the students (see turn 01). In turn 01 she tells the students that she is teaching them good handwriting in the two languages that the children speak, that is, English and Swahili. She uses both languages to emphasize her point. As the students write the letters and the words down, she goes around the classroom monitoring their handwriting to make sure that they write neatly and legibly and provides instant feedback (see turn 03–06). Over time her pupils became good writers. This student-teacher interaction was possible because of an enabling classroom environment, that is, a manageable number of students and a spacious classroom. Otherwise in a crowded classroom with desks and pupils this would have been very challenging. The Kenya National English Syllabus (2006) states the following concerning handwriting: “This is an important area in the development of language. How well children write depends wholly on the kind of training they have received” (p. 3). Therefore, Ms. Tina was very aware of how to improve her students’ handwriting—she trained them. As always, handwriting lessons were not different from the other lessons in this classroom. The students were very inquisitive and talkative. For example, in this lesson, Subira asks Ms. Tina in turn 02 if handwriting is a subject. She informs her that handwriting is not a subject. As a matter of fact, handwriting is a skill which is integrated across all subjects. Also, it is very rewarding to receive feedback from the teacher. Kalu’s grinning and saying thank you to his teacher is the climax of this lesson (see turn 07). The teacher has provided a model of how a good handwriting looks like and this has paid off. Kalu is so proud of his handwriting. Furthermore, Yusufu and Jabali are expanding their math and language skills through talk (see turns 08 and 09). We hope that Yusufu has been reminded by his desk mate, Jabali, that seven plus seven is not twelve but fourteen and that twelve plus twelve is twenty-four. These children are playing with numbers and patterns, and in the process, they are building their language skills. Finally, it is important to note that the handwriting drill was done every morning till the children got to letter Z. Debate lessons were rare opportunities when the children got to creatively write at Nyika primary school. During my two months of observation at this school, I observed only one debate. It was about “Girls are better than boys.” The teacher advised the students to write down their points (see Kalu’s writing in Fig. 4.5).

94 

E. M. LISANZA

Fig. 4.5  Kalu’s debate points

Looking at Kalu’s writing, there is no question it would have been beneficial to have such opportunities to write more often and also have the teacher look at the children’s writings to facilitate their writing as she did with reading. For example, Kalu in the above writing has misspelled the following words: “folloing” [following], “scayerd” [scared], and “first” [fast]. Also, some structures such as “Boys be calm than girl[s] do” needed the teacher’s facilitation. In conclusion, in both schools as Vygotsky observed, “The teaching of writing has been conceived in narrowly practical terms. Children are taught to trace out letters and make words out of them, but they are not taught written language” (1978, p. 105). As we have seen, in both schools the children did spelling (dictation), grammar exercises, filling in blanks, copying (at Mutituni), and handwriting (at Nyika), which are important components of writing; however, children need opportunities to be exposed to real writing. Thus, writing was mechanical in both schools. More importantly, during the official writing curriculum the children did not use print to represent their ideas (apart from the rare debate opportunities in the Nyika classroom). Ironically, the national curriculum states that “the learner should acquire writing skills to be able to express own feelings and ideas meaningfully and legibly in correct English structure” (National Syllabus, 2006, p. 4). How are these children going to be able to express

4  THE ENACTED WRITING CURRICULUM 

95

their feelings and ideas if they are not given the opportunity to write? Hence, there is a mismatch in what the national curriculum mandates and whatever is executed in the classroom following its specific objectives like we saw in the introduction of this chapter. This mismatch must be resolved. The pupils must be given an opportunity to talk about themselves and also to build relationships on paper, as we will see in Chap. 5. Essentially, as per dialogic and sociocultural theories, the mechanical activities which constituted writing in both schools would not qualify to be written language, simply because the children had very little agency in the official writing curriculum. Nevertheless, although in Nyika the writing curriculum was mechanical just as in Mutituni, the teacher allowed her students to talk during writing activities. Through the children’s talk we have learned a lot about the Nyika children. However, we know very little about Mutituni children so far, simply because the teacher discouraged children to talk as they did their so-called writing. Furthermore, other than Ms. Tina allowing her pupils’ voices to be heard, she was also a reflective teacher and a good facilitator of her pupils’ learning. For example, when she realized that her pupils’ handwriting was not improving, she changed her approach. Thus, teachers must pay attention to learners’ performance and instruct accordingly. Lastly, we have seen that writing was usually embedded in the reading lessons. This practice had an advantage and a disadvantage. On the one hand, it was advantageous because writing and reading complemented each other. On the other hand, it was disadvantageous because reading seemed to overshadow writing. As mentioned, writing must be given its time and place in the curriculum. So far, we have seen what the children in both schools were able to do during teacher-controlled times. Let us now turn to the children as they operate in their own controlled times.

References Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Kenya Institute of Education. (2006). English primary syllabus. Nairobi: KIE. Lisanza, E. M. (2016). Rafiki: A teacher-pupil. In A.H. Dyson (ed.), Child cultures, schooling, and literacy: Global perspectives on composing unique lives (pp. 98–108). New York and London: Routledge.

96 

E. M. LISANZA

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2019). Learning to read and write: What research reveals. Retrieved from https://www. readingrockets.org/article/learning-read-and-write-what-research-reveals Samway, K. (2006). When English language learners write: Connecting research to practice, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

CHAPTER 5

The Unofficial Practices: What Are the Children Telling Us?

It was Subira’s birthday. Kadogo had just finished jotting the above letter and was about to hand it over to Subira when Ms. Tina saw the envelope. Kadogo had designed the envelope from a piece of paper. As will be discussed later, birthday celebrations were central in the Nyika classroom. Birthdays brought to the fore the idea of a best friend. As a matter of fact, it was a great honor to have a birthday. Also, if one was a best friend to the birthday girl/boy, she/he got to sit right next to her/him. Therefore, it was no coincidence that Kadogo took the effort to let Subira know that she was her best friend (Fig. 5.1). The pupils in both schools sat in their designated desks with the assumption that they would be quiet as they did the business of schooling. In the teachers’ thinking, no one thought a child such as Kadogo would think of writing a letter to her best friend given that this was not even part of the writing curriculum. Mrs. Kyeni and Ms. Tina worked hard to instruct the children on the conventional basics of how to read and write. On the one hand, the proper progressing pupil in reading would pronounce and read words correctly as we have seen in Chap. 3. On the other hand, the progressing pupil in writing would write down the dictated words correctly, do grammar exercises correctly, write neatly (good handwriting) as they copied words from the blackboard and so forth as we have seen in Chap. 4. However, the pupils had their own agency, which was triggered by the desire to talk to each other and play with each other or simply to write on

© The Author(s) 2020 E. M. Lisanza, The Multivoices of Kenyan Primary School Children Learning to Read and Write, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38110-3_5

97

98 

E. M. LISANZA

Fig. 5.1  Kadogo’s letter to Subira

the paper through drawing or print. For instance, the desire for Kadogo to remind Subira that she was her best friend had a meaning in this c­ lassroom. As mentioned already, Kadogo would get to sit next to Subira during her birthday celebrations. Therefore, in this chapter I will examine childrencontrolled practices or what Dyson (1993) calls “unofficial curriculum.” These practices included talking, reading and writing. Writing included both drawing and printing. The children’s writing was marked by pictures only, pictures with labels and print such as a list of words, phrases and stories. This chapter brings to the fore what children possess and can do using the available resources, for instance, multilingualism, wall charts, books (i.e., storybooks and textbooks), their experiences, their imagination and so on. Through the unofficial curriculum, the children in both

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

99

schools were involved in meaningful activities which gave them agency in their language and literacy development. In the following subsections, I will discuss the symbolic repertoires of the children. These include children’s talk, drawing and writing. Examples will be drawn from both schools.

Children’s Symbolic Repertoires and Linguistic Repertoires: The Place of Talk It is break/snack time and children are talking to each other in the Mutituni classroom (the rural school). At Mutituni primary school, the language of communication during child-controlled times (i.e., break and lunch times) was predominantly Swahili. Let us join Kanze and his friends as they eat their snacks. Snack Time in Mutituni Primary School Kanze: Msafiri: Kanze:

Nisadie na (Help me with a) sharpener. Subiri kidogo (Wait a little bit) [sharpening his pencil]. [Another child has snatched his fork] Leta vitu vyangu (Bring my things). [The child gives back the fork and Kanze offers a piece of maandazi (doughnut) to his best friend, Msafiri]. Msafiri: Kyalo kuja hapa haraka (Come here very fast). Kyalo: Usiniite (Don’t call me). Msafiri: Nisaidie (Help me) [Requesting for a share of his snack]. Kyalo: Hapana (No). Wewe umebeba nini (What do you have)? Msafiri: [Smiles. No response. He did not have any snack]. [Name deleted] nani hupika kwenu (Who cooks in your home)? Kanze: Mimi hupika (I cook). Msafiri: Wewe unapikiwa na mama yako. Kila mtu hupikiwa na mama yake. (Your mother cooks for you. Everybody is usually cooked for by his/her mother). Mwendo: Eeh kila mtu hupikiwa na mama yake. [To Katinda while smiling] Enda ukapikiwe na mama yako. (Yes, everybody is usually cooked for by his/her mother. [To Katinda while smiling] Go and be cooked for by your mother.) Katinda: [Smiles and says nothing].

100 

E. M. LISANZA

Kanze:

[Changing the topic] Mimi nina funiko mbili [I have two bottle tops] [He had two bottle tops]. Msafiri: Mimi nina funiko ndogo (I have a small bottle top) [Showing the cap of his water bottle]. Kanze: [He is done eating and grabs a piece of paper and starts drawing] (See Fig. 5.3) Msafiri: [Grabs a piece of paper too and starts drawing. Draws a lion, cup, bus etc.] (See Fig. 5.2) Kanze: [Tells Msafiri] Andika (Write a) cat. Msafiri: [Draws a cat] Kanze: [Draws the sun, moon, tree, and sheep. He labels all the three drawings apart from the sun and writes] I am a boy. The teacher is teaching pupils [Edited] [and finally, draws a lion without labelling]. [Then he tells Msafiri]: Andika (Write a) dog. Msafiri: [Draws a dog] Kanze: Wacha nikuchoree (Let me draw for you a) cat. Msafiri: [He does not let him do so, he personally draws a cat] Kanze: [Insists] Wacha nikuchoree (Let me draw for you a) cat. Msafiri: [He does not let him draw. But he lets him label the items]. Msafiri and Kanze are pupils at Mutituni primary school. They are very good friends. They always play together and sit next to each other in the classroom. However, the two children are at different developmental stages in terms of print. Kanze is able to draw and label items and also produce sentences to some extent. However, Msafiri is still struggling with print. This is the reason why he let his friend Kanze label the items for him (see Fig.  5.2). However, he has a very good control of drawing (see Fig. 5.2). He is also a very good conversation partner (see his conversation with Kanze and Kyalo above). He is able to ask Kanze who cooks at their home. When Kanze tells him, he is the one who cooks, he understands very clearly that Kanze is just playing because he knows it is the mothers who cook in their community. He is also able to make a request, for example, he requests his classmate Kyalo to share his snack with him. However, Kyalo turns down the request. Nevertheless, Msafiri understands the meaning of “no”. Whether it is time for snack or other school activities, print and talk will always make way in the children’s daily life. Usually adults in schools have a schedule of what needs to be done at what time. However, to the chil-

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

101

Fig. 5.2  Msafiri’s drawing

dren, snack time can also be talking, drawing or writing time, and this is what usually took place in this classroom during snack time (see Fig. 5.2 & Fig. 5.3). Although Mrs. Kyeni emphasized every written product to be an individual effort, as it turns out in the children’s world, a product on paper can be as a result of collaboration. Looking at the final product which Msafiri and Kanze have produced in Fig. 5.2, no one would have known that it was an effort of two good friends. According to the sociocultural view, Kanze acted as a “more capable peer” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). More importantly, for the children to be able to carry out these ­activities, the availability of resources is very crucial. To these children, the availability of paper and pencil, their language repertoires and friends were very crucial for the success of the mentioned activities. The language of

102 

E. M. LISANZA

Fig. 5.3  Kanze’s drawing

c­ ommunication, Swahili, during their interaction with each other played such a great role in their communication. It seems like these were totally different children whom we met in Chap. 3 during English reading lessons and Chap. 4 during writing lessons. As we saw in Chap. 3, the children were silenced by the language of instruction, which they were still being exposed to. However, during the unofficial time where Swahili is the language of communication, we hear a “sea of talk” (Britton, 1970, p. 29). These children are not quiet anymore. They have a conversation with each other. They can ask questions and respond to each other’s questions and ideas. Through their drawing and print, we also get to know some of the items they interact with either literally or through their imaginations (e.g., trees and animals like dogs, cows, sheep, lion, etc.). Through labels we

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

103

observe multilingualism of the children as well. They have written down the following words: lion, cap [cup], bas [bus], cat, car, kaa [a piece of coal], bog [dog], att [hat] and cow. Kanze did not know what a piece of coal was in English; however, he knew what it was in Swahili [kaa]. As a multilingual speaker, Kanze, in the world of his peers, is able to make use of any of the school languages, which were Swahili and English. His multilingualism is a resource in his peers’ world. The Nyika children also had snack time. Although the children from Mutituni brought personal snacks from home, the Nyika children’s snacks were provided by the school because their parents had contributed the money for the snacks and lunch too. In the following extract, all the children are drinking porridge. Several children are involved in this conversation. Unlike the Mutituni children whose language of communication during their free time was predominantly Swahili, for the Nyika children the language of communication was generally English and occasionally Swahili. It is important to note that just like at Mutituni primary school as the children drank their porridge, they were expected to drink it quietly. This is what Ms. Tina called “good table manners.” However, who can really separate talk and play from the children especially when they are eating/drinking? Snack Time at Nyika Primary School Juma: Is porridge hot for you? Kalu: No. Juma: It’s not? Ciru: Rehema, is yours hot? Rehema: Yes. Ciru: Even when you notice is hot, you drink? Rehema: You drink without tasting it, like this [gulps]. Juma: Rehema is finished. Ciru: See mine is here [pointing to her cup which is a quarter empty]. Rehema: It’s not even hot [She has finished drinking her porridge]. Ciru: Rino drink your porridge. Rino: It’s hot. Juma: It’s not even hot. What about if it was hot hot hot hot? Yusufu: [Talking to Ciru] How do you drink so fast? Ciru: You drink without tasting it.

104 

E. M. LISANZA

Juma:

Subira: T: Subira:

Yusufu: Subira: Yusufu:

Jabali:

[He is done with his porridge and someone has just dropped cups in a nearby classroom]. [Says in Swahili] Kuna mtu amemwaga [There is someone who has dropped] cups. [Says in Swahili] Nasikia ta ta ta [I hear ta ta ta (sound made by the falling cups)]. Help me with your rubber [asking Ciru]. [He wants to erase something from his exercise book]. Excuse me, his parents have a lot of money and he can’t tell them to buy him a rubber? [She hears Subira’s comment and she says] It’s not so bad to share. [The other day the children had a very interesting debate about who is better in doing things—A boy or a girl and this seems to be fresh in Subira’s mind]. A woman can see more than a man. When my mother was in town, my cousin aliwakisha (switched on the) TV and my mother got home, she said, “[name deleted] ni wewe uliwakisha (you are the one who switched on the) TV.” [Supporting Subira’s claim] This morning I drank my mom’s soda and when she came back to the room, she said to me, “You are the one who drank my soda.” [Excited] You see! Women can see better. [He is done drinking his porridge. He starts jotting something down on a piece of paper, and all of a sudden, he takes one of Jabali’s exercise books and copies his name down. He has drawn a stick person and written a message to Jabali. He hands over the note to Jabali.] [After reading the note, he smiles at Yusufu and erases his name and writes Yusufu’s name instead and hands the note back to Yusufu.]

Yusufu and Jabali: [Both boys laugh at each other.] [I pretended like I did not see what took place, and I asked Yusufu, “What’s that?” and he told me, “It’s a note I had written to… (name deleted)”] (Fig. 5.4).

It is amazing how snack time triggered talk among the children at Nyika primary school just as it did at Mutituni primary school. In this episode the temperature of the children’s porridge has led to this long talk among several children who sat next to each other. As a matter of fact, the

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

105

Fig. 5.4  Yusufu’s note to Jabali

other children are wondering how their peers Rehema and Ciru can drink such hot porridge. Ciru and Rehema inform their peers that the secret was to drink the porridge “without tasting it.” However, Juma retaliates that the porridge is just hot! It is not hot hot hot! The number of times the word “hot” is repeated, the hotter it is! It is also notable how these bilingual children translanguage between different languages, that is, between English and Swahili. For example, at one point Juma is speaking in English, and he switches to Swahili and back to English. The same case happens to Subira. She translanguages from English to Swahili when she reports her mother’s speech. From a dialogic view, Subira is appropriating the words and languages of the people around her. There is no doubt that Subira is an experienced bilingual speaker who is using her linguistic repertoire to bring her ideas alive. She is populating her mother’s words with her own intentions and accent (Bakhtin, 1981) that women can tell who did something in their absence. In other words, women have second intuition. Therefore, just as Edelsky and Jilbert (1985) observed, the children’s bilingualism enhances their possibilities for meaning making rather than reducing it as often presumed. Also, these children are translanguaging for specific reasons. For example, Juma translanguaged to emphasize a point (i.e., the sound cups made as they hit the ground), while Subira translanguaged to produce her mother’s direct speech which was in Swahili. As readers, we also learn about the socioeconomic status of Juma’s family through Subira’s words, “His parents have a lot of money.” It is important to note that these children knew each other so well because they came from the same neighborhood and, more importantly, they played with

106 

E. M. LISANZA

each other after school. As I walked around the neighborhood, I could see the children riding bikes together or even playing soccer together on the neighborhood playground. Some of them also attended the same churches, and more importantly majority of their parents were friends. There was a great sense of community. Additionally, it is interesting that the children at such a tender age are aware of the socioeconomic statuses of the families in the neighborhood. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, print cannot be separated from the children’s other symbolic repertoires (e.g., play and talk). For instance, Yusufu and Jabali are playing on a piece of paper. Yusufu initiates the play, and since he does not know how to spell Jabali’s name, he takes Jabali’s book and copies his name down after drawing a stick person. He also draws two arrows coming out of Jabali’s mouth. They are like speech bubbles. After writing the note, he hands it over to Jabali who immediately enters into the play. Jabali cancels his name by scribbling with a pencil and then writes Yusufu’s name instead. The note read “I am… (names deleted) I am a pig I am.” The message is well received by the two boys that they are just playing with each other through sharing a smile. Jabali understands his friend quite well. However, at one time, Yusufu’s jokes almost landed him in trouble when he called Rehema “mshamba” (a rural person in Swahili). Before Yusufu had called Rehema “mshamba,” the children had been talking about their strengths and what they could do with their strengths. See the conversation below. “Mshamba” Episode Yusufu:

Rehema: Dan: Rehema: Yusufu: Dan: Rehema: Dan: Rehema:

[to Rehema and Dan] Stop talking. Go outside and play. [He was not feeling well, and therefore, he had permission from Ms. Tina to stay indoors when the other children went outside for recess.] I am very strong. You can carry a camel? I can carry a camel. You can carry a giraffe? A giraffe! Ngai! [Ngai is the word for God in Kikamba]. I can carry a giraffe. Me, I can carry my mother. I carried my uncle, like this [pretending to be carrying something very heavy and making very short strides].

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

107

Dan: Yusufu:

[Smiling] You can carry a toy uncle. [Smiling and whispering to Dan] She looks like a mshamba (a rural person). Dan: [Laughing so loudly] He called you mshamba. Rehema: [To Yusufu] I will say [report] you [to the teacher]. The “washamba” [the plural form of mshamba] are well known when they come to the city for carrying heavy things along the city streets. They either bring farm produce to the city for their relatives or to sell to the city dwellers. Therefore, the fact that Rehema is pretending to carry a heavy object brings that image of a “mshamba” to Yusufu’s mind. Although he is playing, this does not go very well with Rehema. For anyone in the city to be called “mshamba,” it is a big insult. Again, Yusufu is revoicing the words/voices around him. There is no doubt he has borrowed the word “mshamba” from the people which he interacts with on daily basis. He is not only revoicing the words but also the languages that surround him. In this case, Swahili. Furthermore, not only are the children revoicing Swahili and English but also other Kenyan languages. However, the other Kenyan languages rarely resurfaced in both schools. In this case, Dan cannot believe that Rehema can carry a giraffe! And no wonder he has to call upon “Ngai” [God]! Ngai is a Kikamba word. When Rehema says she carried her uncle, Dan dismisses that by simply saying it was a toy uncle. So, the children are aware that they are playing with each other. No matter what animal is mentioned, Rehema assures her peers that she can carry it. As Vygotsky observed, “In play a child always behaves beyond his average age, above his daily behavior; in play it is as though he were a head taller than himself” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 102). In this play, Rehema is this gigantic giant who can carry any animal including the camel and the giraffe. The children in Nyika primary school just as the Mutituni children had many stories to talk about. These stories were based on the books they read or the stories told by their teacher or on the programs they watched on the television and so forth. Amazingly, the many children programs they watched on the television were based on the American children programs like Nickelodeon and Disney. Through technological advancement, the American programs have made their way into the Kenyan cable network. This particular day when the children had the following talk, they had just finished taking their 4 o’clock snack, and they were getting ready to go home.

108 

E. M. LISANZA

Children Shows Episode Subira: I like McQueen. Rehema: That’s for boys. Kadogo: I like cartoons. All the cartoons are people. Rehema: Really? Kadogo: Yes. Rehema: My mother watches the Thundermans. My mother says, “Put the Thundermans.” And sometimes I’m watching the same Thundermans. I wonder, “which one? And I’m watching it.” Yusufu: Remember the Dark Mayhem? Rehema: Yes. Remember when Phoebe asked Billy and Dora if they could go to the park? Yusufu: Yes. Rehema: You remember when Max was the president? Subira: That was a long time ago. Yusufu: Remember Dr. Colosso? Subira and Rehema: Yes. The digital age has made the world a global village. The children in Kenya are watching American children programs like the Nickelodeon’s  The Thundermans. Let me provide a short background information about The  Thundermans for the readers who may not be familiar with this program. The Thundermans are a family of superheroes. There is the father, Hank Thunderman, who is a retired superhero by the name “Thunder Man” from a town known as Metroburg; mother, Barb Thunderman, who is also a retired superhero by the name “Electress” from Metroburg too; their firstborn daughter Phoebe Thunderman who is the protector of Hiddenville; their firstborn son Max Thunderman who is supposed to be a superhero but sometimes aspires to be a supervillain; Max and Phoebe are twins and they are the main characters of this story; then the second-­born daughter Nora, second-born son Billy, and the last-born daughter Chloe. Generally, this family has the responsibility to protect Hiddenville. Then there is their pet bunny, Dr. Colosso, who is a former supervillain. He was turned into a bunny by Hank Thunderman before he retired. Max and Dr. Colosso are great friends. Finally, there is the chief supervillain Dark Mayhem. Max adores Dark Mayhem and seeks to be like him.

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

109

With that short introduction, let us now go back to the children and the Thundermans. It is amazing that children who are thousands of miles away can watch the same programs and share the same experiences. However, it is only the Kenyan children who are watching the American programs. The American children are not watching the Kenyan programs. So, by the end of the day, the Kenyan children are being influenced by the American culture in one way or the other in the name of entertainment. In a perfect world, the children of both worlds would share their programs. Unfortunately, this is not how the world works. Nevertheless, it is a fact that these TV programs are a good English language resource for the Kenyan children. From the sociocultural view, these programs are facilitating children’s listening and speaking skills. These children can narrate what is going on on the children’s TV programs so well. However, this is a resource which the children at Mutituni did not have. Even though TV programs may have cultural impact which sometimes is negative, nonetheless it is a good resource for English language development. Additionally, it seems some children shows are gendered. There are some shows for girls and other for boys. For example, Rehema tells Subira that McQueen is for boys. Lightning McQueen is a children’s show about cars. The idea that Subira likes a boys’ program (according to Rehema) seemed to have silenced Subira. However, Thundermans seems to be for both girls and boys. Moreover, family topics came up from time to time. For example, in the following episode, the children are doing a Math exercise, and it is not surprising that numbers came up. Let us join the Nyika children as they talk about their families. Family Episode Rino: Subira: Kadogo: Rehema: Kadogo:

How many children are in your family? We are three. We are seven. Those are very many. I have two brothers, one sister, my mother, my father, my aunt. My uncle lives far away. Subira: My brothers are teenagers because they are nineteen years old. Kadogo: My brothers are teenagers because they are twenty-two years old. Rehema: My cousins are teenagers because they are sixteen years old. Subira: [To Rino] Do you have teenagers? Rino: No [He is the only child].

110 

E. M. LISANZA

Through the above children’s talk, not only do readers learn about the number of children in each family, but they also learn about the age of their siblings and cousins. In the above conversation, Kadogo clarifies that she has two brothers and one sister not seven as Subira had thought. Seven included everyone who lived in their house in Nairobi. It is important to note that these children know what the word “teenager” means. Also, there is no question that they are using all the resources at their disposal to enrich their talk. These included family topics, numbers and language. Furthermore, different events at Nyika primary school were a major resource for the children to develop their language skills. As mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, birthday celebrations were big occasions at Nyika primary school. However, there were no birthday celebrations at Mutituni primary school. During my two-month observation at Nyika primary school, I observed two birthday celebrations (i.e., Subira’s and Rino’s). The parents of the birthday children brought cake, drinks and snacks for the children to share. It was a time of joy. As mentioned, that was the time to really know who was the best friend to the birthday girl/boy. As a matter of fact, the teacher asked the birthday girl/ boy to say who was the best friend so that they could sit next to each other and help with the cutting of the cake. It was also a time when there was a lot of talk and writing among the children. The writing was their own initiative without the teacher’s involvement. As we saw in the introduction of this chapter, Kadogo had written a note to Subira to remind her she was her best friend. Kadogo quietly wrote this note during recess. The following was the conversation which took place between Ms. Tina and the two girls. Kadogo’s Letter Episode T:

[Gets a letter from Kadogo, reads and asks her] The letter is for who? Kadogo: For… [name deleted]. T: [Hands the note to Subira]. Subira: [Opens the envelope and reads it quietly and smiles]. T: Have you understood the letter? Subira: Yes. Even though Ms. Tina did not teach creative writing in her classroom, the fact that she passed the letter to Subira, she indirectly legitimized this kind of communication among her pupils. Surprisingly, Subira’s birthday was followed by Kadogo’s birthday and Kadogo continued with her creative

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

111

writing. She made a list of the people who were to attend her birthday. Her birthday was to be over the weekend, so it was absolutely necessary to invite some of her classmates to her home. Thus, her writing had a purpose. It turned out I was among the people invited!1 Unfortunately, I was not able to be there. Kadogo was such a creative child. Recall she designed an envelope for Subira’s letter? She read out the names of the invited guests to the whole class, and those children who were on the list were very excited to attend the birthday over that weekend. Apart from inviting her classmates to her birthday party, she also brought five storybooks that Friday to share with her classmates. It was a day filled with literacy activities. Hence, birthdays offered an opportunity in this classroom for the children to talk with each other, and also written language found its way as the children prepared for or celebrated the birthdays as we have seen with Kadogo’s letter to Subira and the invitation list. Their symbolic repertoires were expanded through birthdays. As mentioned earlier, children at Nyika primary school had many resources from which their talk and stories were appropriated. For example, the stories came from the TV programs they watched, the stories they read, the stories told by their teacher in class (especially Bible stories) and many more avenues. However, the stories which they wrote down were usually based on the stories they read during their independent reading. Before we turn to the stories which the children at Nyika wrote down, let us go back to the Mutituni children and see what else they did during their unofficial curriculum. First, we will look at their drawings, labels and then stories.

The Place of Drawing in Children’s (Written) Language Development Most of the children’s writings at Mutituni primary school during their controlled time were marked by drawings. These drawings were usually pictures or pictures accompanied by labels. The children also listed words or phrases down. There were those children who were at the stage of drawings only, others at drawing and labels or drawing and sentences/ phrases. The items drawn included items at home (e.g., cooking pots, cups, plates, etc.), at school (e.g., books, blackboard, pencils, bookbags, etc.), in the neighborhood (e.g., animals, buses, lorries/trucks, “tuk tuk,” 1  The invitation list cannot be attached here because it contains actual names of the children.

112 

E. M. LISANZA

trees, etc.) and many more. These drawings were drawn from memory or copied from the wall pictures. It is also important to note that there were no stories behind the drawings, they were just drawings of items. The drawing practice at Mutituni primary school was a little bit different from the grade one classroom I observed earlier (Lisanza, 2011) where some of the drawings which the children did were stories in form of pictures. For example, in Fig. 5.5, Kasuku is telling a story through drawings.

Fig. 5.5  Kasuku’s drawing

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

113

She narrated the following story to me in Swahili: Nyumba ilikuwa hapa [points at the hut] na nyoka [points the coiled lines] ikatoka msalani [the square like structure] ikaingia kwa nyumba [points at the hut]. Ikachapwa ikakufa. Ikakuja kutupwa hapa kwa maji [points at the circular item at the center]. Na ikakuja hapa kukula mayai ya kuku [points at the oval item]. [I asked her: hata kama imekufa?] Ndio. Na sasa hawa watoto [points at the two children] hawaogopi nyoka. Halafu huyu mtoto [points at the big one] anaita huyu mwingine [points at the little one] akakataa akaenda hivyo kakapatana na nyoka [the coiled thing next to the children] kakatemewa mate kakaja kufia hapa. Na aka kengine kakufia hapa. [A house was here [points at the hut] and a snake [points at the coiled lines] came out of the toilet [the square like structure] and went in the house [points at the hut]. It was then beaten and then it died. And then it was thrown here in the water [points at the circular item at the center]. And it came here [points at the oval item] to eat chicken’s eggs. [I asked her: even though it is dead? She said]: Yes. And now, these children [points at the two children] do not fear snakes. Then, this child [points at the big one] is calling this other one [points at the little one] and she refused and then went to the other side and then met with the snake [the coiled thing next to the children] and was spit on and came to die here [points at the smaller child on her back] and the other died here [points at the bigger child on her back].

Kasuku is using different resources within her reach to mediate her story: drawing, talk and gestures. The story behind the drawings has been revealed through talk and gestures. Through different symbolic repertoires, Kasuku’s audience is made aware that there is a snake which has entered the house and has been beaten to death and then thrown into water; however, even though dead, it is eating chicken’s eggs and also spitting on little children! If it was not for the power of talk and gestures, we may have assumed that this child has just drawn things randomly on paper. Therefore, it is very clear that all these symbolic repertoires nurture children’s language and literacy development. And more importantly, they are inseparable. Let us now join Msafiri, Kanze, Maria and their peers as they write. Pictures Only As mentioned, a good number of children at Mutituni primary school were at the drawings only stage in their written language. An example of pictures only comes from Msafiri. From the beginning of my project to the end, Msafiri’s writing was marked by drawings only. In the following

114 

E. M. LISANZA

Fig. 5.6  Msafiri’s “Mkokoteni” and “Nyumbani”

portrait, Msafiri’s drawings are packed with cultural information about his community (Fig. 5.6). When Msafiri did this drawing, he was seated next to his best friend Kanze who was also drawing during lunch time (see Fig. 5.7). The two children exchanged smiles from time to time. Msafiri named (orally) the above items in Swahili. The first drawing was named “mkokoteni” (a pulling cart) and the second one was “nyumbani” (home). The second drawing is a representation of his home. At his home there is a main house, a kitchen and a pit latrine. In this community usually the main house is made of brick walls and a roof covered with iron sheets, while the kitchen hut is made of mud/brick walls and thatched with grass. As can be seen from Msafiri’s drawing, the kitchen is detached from the main house. The reason why this is the case is because firewood is the main

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

115

Fig. 5.7  Kanze—means of transport

cooking resource. Firewood emits a lot of soot. This soot darkens rooms and items. The reader will recall when Ms. Tina was telling her urban pupils about soot in Chap. 2 as they talked about the effects of cigarettes in our bodies. She asked the children, “Can you imagine the smoke from the kitchen the way it makes soot?” She was trying to make a connection between the soot from the kitchen and that of cigarette. Nevertheless, her pupils could not make that connection. However, if the same example was given to the Mutituni children, they would have seen the connection immediately. Therefore, Msafiri’s drawing is packed with information about his homestead. Also, in the village, latrines stand alone because there is no piped water. Furthermore, in Msafiri’s drawing there is a “mkokoteni” (a pulling cart); usually “mikokoteni” [the plural form of

116 

E. M. LISANZA

mkokoteni] are found in shopping centers in Kenya and are usually hired by people to carry huge items. This is also a cultural item. However, something to note is that a “mkokoteni” is usually pulled by people, but Msafiri’s “mkokoteni” is being pulled by two animals in a yoke. Thus, in his imagination a “mkokoteni” can be pulled by animals too. Moreover, Msafiri has borrowed the words “mkokoteni” and “nyumbani” from the people in his neighborhood. Pictures with Labels Several children at Mutituni primary school were at this stage in their written language: pictures with labels. The labels were either in English or Swahili. No child labeled any item in Kikamba. As mentioned earlier, the children seemed to adhere strictly to the school’s language policy that Kikamba was not a school language. The next portrait comes from Kanze  (see Fig.  5.7). As already mentioned, Kanze and Msafiri are best friends. In the above drawing just as several children did in this class, Kanze has drawn and labeled common items found in his neighborhood. These are some of the means of travel found in his neighborhood—a bus, a car and a “tuk tuk.” Tuk tuks are named after the sound they make. Just like Msafiri, Kanze has borrowed words and images of means of transport from his neighborhood to nurture his written language. His simple message of labelling of the drawn items is so crucial for his readers to identify the items correctly. It is also important to note that Kanze has made use of his English repertoire. The next illustration is from Kyalo. Kyalo drew different animals found at home and in the wild (see Fig. 5.8). Kyalo has drawn different animals and labeled them. These are a lion, a goat, a cow, a sheep and a dog. Cows, goats and dogs are found in different homes in Kyalo’s neighborhood. However, lions are not found in the neighborhood. Nevertheless, many children in this classroom drew different wildlife. Wildlife is only found in the national parks in Kenya such as Nairobi National Park. Also, most of the Kenyan currency (e.g., 1000 bill) has pictures of elephants on the back, and all coins have the Kenyan Coat of Arms which has two lions and a shield. Hence, these children interact with wildlife in the currency and also in books on a daily basis. It is therefore not surprising that wildlife is part of their written language. Through Kyalo’s portrait, the readers get a glimpse of some of the animals found in his neighborhood too. Kyalo just like Kanze has labeled his items in English.

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

117

Fig. 5.8  Kyalo’s animal drawing

Pictures with Phrases Very few children were at the stage of pictures with phrases in their written language. The next illustration is from Maria (see Fig. 5.9). When Maria did this writing, she was seated next to her best friend, Ndindi, who was also writing (see Fig. 5.10). They quietly did their work. In this example, Maria has drawn and labeled different items found in her environment and also written down different phrases beginning with “This [is] a….” In the below writing (Fig. 5.9), Maria has drawn and written down different items found in her surroundings. For example, “ubao” (blackboard), the

118 

E. M. LISANZA

Fig. 5.9  Maria’s items labeled in English and Swahili

sun, a book, a dog, a “pensil” (pencil), “hat” (a hut), a girl, “sahani” (a plate), “meza” (a table). As already mentioned, there is a simple message in each of these labels. Without these messages in the labels, there is no way we could have known what number 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10 were. Therefore, this labelling is very vital to the readers. Maria also has the following phrases as part of her writing:

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

Fig. 5.10  Ndindi’s drawing

This [is] a boll [ball] This [is] a girl This [is] a sun This [is] a dog This [is] a hat This [is] a pensil [pencil]

119

120 

E. M. LISANZA

This [is] a chair This [is] a sahani [plate] This [is] a cat This [is] a dog This [is] a tree This [is] a bag This [is] a bas [bus] Not only has Maria made use of her English linguistic repertoire but also her Swahili repertoire. She has used words such as “meza” [table], “ubao” [blackboard] and “sahani” [plate] in her writing. Also, as part of her writing, she has not only written single words but also some repeated phrases, that is, “this [is] a …” This is “stylized sentence writing” (Samway, 2006, p. 43). With this pattern Maria is able to produce as many sentences as possible so long as she knows the name of the object in English or in Swahili for that matter. This was a pattern used by several children in the class to produce many sentences in English, but the challenge came whenever the child forgot the pattern or got it wrong as we have seen with Maria. Maria’s “need for information illustrates one consequence of drawing/writing being strictly an unofficial activity in the classroom” (Lisanza, 2011, p. 205). However, other children like Ndindi got the pattern right. Ndindi has drawn a pot, a cup, a book, a house and a lion and let her readers know what the items are by simply stating, “This is a….” (See. 5.10). The writing of such sentences/phrases marked development in the children’s English written language. Moreover, some of the children just used the same stylized sentence writing structure without any support from the drawings. Stylized Sentences with No Drawings Our first example comes from Katana. Please note that I have maintained the spaces between the words and sentences as the children did. Katana wrote her sentences as follows: 1. This is a ball 2. This is a girl 3. This is a bag 4. This is a pen 5. This is a book 6. This is a cup

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

121

7. This is a house 8. This is a hen 9. This is a table 10. This is a boy 11. This is a chair 12. This is a teacher 13. This is a tree 14. This is a flower 15. This is a pen Just like the labels, these simple phrases carried a simple message in them. Katana is recording down what she has in her English repertoire (i.e., words and sentences). Similar to what Newkirk (1987) observed, these children are not writing down speech. They are just recording some of the words and phrases they know in English. This signifies progress in written English language because it shows their vocabulary and sentence structure are expanding. Moreover, the children also wrote about themselves in the form of disjointed sentences in English. They still used the same stylized sentence structures, for instance, “I am …” and “I like ….” For example, Mrembo wrote the following six sentences about herself: . 1 I am a girl 2. I  am  not a boy 3. I  am  class two [I am in class two] 4. I  am  not class one [I am not in class one] 5. I like my teacher 6. I  not  like satan [I do not like Satan] Unlike during the reading or writing lessons in Mrembo’s class at Mutituni primary school, through Mrembo’s simple writing, we have learned so much about her as a child in this particular class. We know she is a girl, not a boy. She is in class two and not in class one and that she likes her teacher and she does not like Satan. The production of such disjointed sentences marks progress in Mrembo’s writing. Apart from drawing and just writing single sentences, some children also wrote down simple stories in Swahili. However, those who attempted to write stories in English usually copied those stories from the class textbook. Nevertheless, during my last day of observation, a child named Nyota wrote down an English story, not copied from anywhere. It was her own production. This story will be discussed later.

122 

E. M. LISANZA

Extended Writing/Stories in Swahili and English The children at Mutituni wrote stories which were based on their life experiences. Usually these stories were written in Swahili. Let us join Imani as she tells us what she likes. mimi ni mtoto mzuri [I am a good child] ni na panda [ninapenda] mwalimu wangu [I like my teacher] mimi ni na penda [ninapenda]  ku cheza [kucheza]  sana [I like playing] mimi ni na cheza [ninacheza]  na  ma Rafiki [marafiki]  yangu [I play with my friends] mimi  ni  na  penda [ninapenda]  kusoma [I like reading] mwalimu  wangu  ni  mzuri  sana [My teacher is very good] mimi ni  ko [niko]  Darasa ya  [la]  pili [I am in grade two]

Through the above story, readers learn who Imani is. She is a good child who is in grade two, and she likes her teacher who is very good. She also likes reading and playing with her friends. Although Imani was not able to produce extended writing in English, this did not prevent her from writing down her story. She used her Swahili language resource to write down her story. Additionally, even though she does not have full control of Swahili word morphology, any Swahili speaker/reader is able to tell what she has written down (e.g., ni na penda [ninapenda]—I like). Moreover, Imani is able to successfully write down nouns (e.g., mtoto [child], mwalimu [teacher]), adjectives (i.e., mzuri [good]) and possessives (i.e., wangu [my]). Finally, Imani is yet to learn how to punctuate her work. The children in Mutituni also wrote stories based on the Swahili poems recited in their class. Imani wrote the following poem and sang it as well. mama in pati e [nipatie]  mayai [Mother give me eggs] in me  choka [nimechoka] na uji [I am fed up with porridge] kila siku ugali na kabeji nyeupe [Every day cornmeal with white cabbage] la zima [lazima]  mimi ta pata [nitapata]  ma jw  man  manjwa [magonjwa] [For sure I will fall sick]

Recitation of poems is a common practice in Kenya. Imani is appropriating resources around her, that is, recitation of poems. The child in this poem (i.e., Imani) is addressing her mother. She is disgusted by porridge, cornmeal and white cabbage. She would like to eat eggs; otherwise she will be sick. Looking at the word morphology, Imani is able to write nouns as

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

123

they should be written, for example, mama (mother), mayai (eggs), uji (porridge), ugali (cornmeal) and so on; however, she is yet to have control of the verbs which are usually agglutinated. For example, “in pati e” [nipatie] (give me) and “in me choka” [nimechoka] (I am fed up). She also needs to work on the spellings of the two words as well and so is “magonjwa” (sickness) which she wrote as “manjwa.” She attempted to spell out “magonjwa” (see the deleted two trials); however, she fell short. There was another famous Swahili poem in this class titled “Nilikuwa na Ujinga” (I had ignorance). As a matter of fact, this poem was a classic in the whole school. Several classes recited this poem. Let us now join Kyalo as he narrates about the wonderful work done by his teacher. 1. inlikuwanaujinga [Nilikuwa na ujinga] nani alitoa [I had ignorance, who removed it?] 2. mama akajaribu lakiniakashidwa [lakini akashindwa] [My mother tried, but she was unable] 3. baba akajaribu lakiniakashidwa [Lakini akashindwa] [My father tried, but he was unable] 4. mwali mu [mwalimu] diyealiweza [ndiye aliweza] [It was the teacher who was able to]

In the above poem, Kyalo is praising his teacher for teaching him. Just like Imani, Kyalo has used his own linguistic repertoire to tell us about the excellent work done by his teacher. He tells us that the teacher was the only person who was able to remove his ignorance (i.e., to teach him). He says that his father and mother tried to teach him, but they couldn’t. Looking at the structure, Kyalo is able to control to some degree his Swahili writing skills. He is able to separate some of the words such as “mama akajaribu” (my mother tried) and “baba akajaribu” (my father tried) and “nani alitoa” (who removed it); however, unlike Imani, his major challenge is to separate words like “nilikuwanaujinga” [Nilikuwa na ujinga] (I had ignorance), “lakiniakashidwa” [Lakini akashindwa] (she/he was unable) and “diyealiweza” [ndiye aliweza] (she/he was able). Moreover, he is also facing the challenge of punctuation. Another poem which was common in this classroom since class one was the poem “Samaki Mnyama Mdogo” (Fish a Little Animal). The following poem was written and recited by Kanze. samaki mnyama mdogo huishi ndani ya maji akiona bina damu huzama ndani ya maji hukimla ni mtamu

124 

E. M. LISANZA

[Fish a little animal who lives in water] [If it sees a human being it goes under water when you eat it it’s] [tasty]

Many children in this classroom recited and wrote down this poem during their free time. When Kanze was reciting this poem, the children also joined his recitation. It was a great moment to see the children’s faces light up with joy. This short Swahili poem brought the whole classroom to a standstill; every child stopped what they were doing to be part of the recitation. These children were yearning for more poems and recitations in their classroom. The recitations brought them together as a community of learners. The production and recitation of this poem reduced the individualism which was encouraged during many classroom activities. The children were a collection of learners. Going back to the poem, Kanze, unlike Kyalo and Imani, has great control of the spellings and Swahili word morphology, for example, he has agglutinated all the verbs correctly (e.g., akiona [when it sees], huzama [usually goes under water], hukimla [if you eat it], etc.), nouns (e.g., samaki [fish], maji [water] and mnyama [animal]) besides bina damu (binadamu) [humans] and adjectives (e.g., mdogo [small], mtamu [tasty]). Nevertheless, just like the other children, he is yet to take control of punctuation marks. As mentioned earlier, most of the time when the Mutituni children wrote down English stories, they were copied from their English textbook. One of the famous copied stories was the conversation between Brenda and Big tree. The children loved this dialogue very much. Here is Imani’s copied version: Brenda Big tree Big tree    I want to cut a branch  for  a  broom Big tree no  from  me  no  from  me [Not from me, not from me]   I give out air and water Brenda Big tree Big tree  Let me cut a twig for a toothbrush Big tree Not from me Not from me   I hold the soil together Brenda Big tree Big tree  Let me cut a twig Big tree Not from me Not from me   I give the birds a home Brenda It is true It is true   I will let you grow Big tree

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

125

These children read (or pretended to read) any page of their English or Swahili textbook during their free time. They were in desperate need of reading materials. They wanted to read. It reminded me of the Nyika children who had reading books, and any time they were free, they went at the back of the classroom and picked up a book to read. Looking at Imani’s writing, although it was copied from the class text, it has some of the features of an emerging child writer. For example, there is no single punctuation mark even though the original dialogue had punctuation marks. Also, in the third line, Imani wrote, “no from me no from me” instead of “Not from me, not from me.” Therefore, Imani has taken a story from the text and given it her own voice. In addition, she has used the textbook as a resource which has mediated her writing in English. We have already seen that Imani can compose in Swahili to a great extent. As mentioned, during my last day of observation, Nyota wrote a story in English. Nyota and Imani were good friends. All through she had drawn and labeled items or copied stories from the text just like the other children did. However, she finally managed to compose a story or as she called it “StoRY” in English. The story was composed during lunch break. She was seated next to Imani when she composed the story. She composed this story without talking to anybody. The story is about a baby named Mumo. StoRY 1. once a pone [upon] a time there was a small BaBy called mumo. That BaBY was Bad. But hers [his] mother was very Good hers [his] mother was in Kisumu. But the BaBY was living with his aunt.

In the above writing, Nyota has entitled her story “stoRY.” She has written an English story about a baby named Mumo. From the story we know that Mumo does not live with his mother, but his aunt. Also, we know Mumo was a bad baby! On the level of grammar, she successfully used the past tense (e.g., there was a small baby, mother was very good, etc.), the English word order (e.g., small baby—adjective followed by a noun) and use of articles (e.g., a time, a small baby). However, her use of grammar items such as “hers mother” and mixing of pronouns “his” and “her” reflect that she is a child English learner. These are common errors among language learners. It is important to note that these “errors are evidence of language resourcefulness” (Samway, 2006, p.  49). Nyota is drawing

126 

E. M. LISANZA

from Swahili which does not mark gender. “His,” “her,” and “hers” are just the same word “yake.” This is not language interference, but a child using the language resources that are within her reach. Finally, Nyota has used punctuation marks (i.e., periods) successfully. To make a concluding remark about writing at Mutituni primary is that among other things, the children are in need of punctuation instruction. Therefore, this calls for the centering of authentic writing in the official curriculum so that the teacher may facilitate their writing. Let us now turn to the children at Nyika primary school as they tell us their stories. Please note that none of the children at Nyika primary school wrote their stories in Swahili. I associated this with the fact that in their class library, there were no storybooks in Swahili. As mentioned earlier, the stories which Nyika children wrote down were generally appropriated from the stories they read from the storybooks.

Nyika Children’s English Stories In this subsection, I will discuss some of the stories which the children from Nyika primary school wrote. Generally, these stories were about animals and giants as they interacted with each other or with people, and Bible stories. It is important to note that when the children wrote the stories, it was during the lesson transitions or during recess or sometimes at home. The stories discussed here are the stories which the children wrote during lesson transitions or during recess because I had the opportunity to observe them as they wrote their stories. Also, I would like to remind the readers that the writing of stories was children’s initiative (e.g., Kadogo’s and Yusufu’s writings) just like creative writing at Mutituni; it was not initiated by the teacher. As we saw in Chap. 4, the writing curriculum was marked by filling the blanks, handwriting, grammar exercises, dictation and so on. The children did not have any official creative writing because this was not a requirement of the writing curriculum in grade two. The writing of stories by the children at Nyika primary school caught my attention during my observation when Kadogo wrote the letter already discussed. After Ciru saw my interest in Kadogo’s birthday letter to Subira, Ciru immediately told me she could write a long story for me. She took a piece of paper and started writing. When the other children saw this, each turned to their books and plucked a piece of paper and started writing quietly. This is how the story writing became a big thing in this classroom.

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

127

The children wrote stories whenever they had an opportunity. It is important to note that most of the times when the children wrote the stories down, it was a quiet activity. They mostly interacted with the paper and the pencil or pen. We will first see the stories about animals and giants and then Bible stories. Let us join Kadogo as she tells us about Mama lion. As already mentioned, note that I have maintained the spacing of words and lines as the child writer did on the piece of paper and underlined any word which she/he underlined or canceled on the paper. Animal Stories Mama lion and shes [her] cubs One day mamalion [mama lion] she went for a walk. One day a cub went to look [for] there [their] mother. Mama lion She soe [saw] one cub missing. mama lion She soe [saw] an elephant end [and] than [then] one human came.

This story is based on a story Kadogo read about the lioness and her cubs. She had read this story the previous day before she wrote down the above story. Even though this story is appropriated from a storybook, Kadogo’s voice as a child writer is very distinct. She has populated this story with her own voice. For example, she refers to the mother lioness as Mama lion. She has also given the story her own title “Mama lion and shes [her] cubs.” From the dialogic view, this child has agency. As Janks (2010) observes, “The ability to produce texts is a form of agency that enables us to choose what meanings to make” (p. 156), which is parallel to “naming the world” (Freire, 1970). Kadogo is not just “copying” and “pasting” the words of the storybook. She is appropriating words from the storybook to rewrite her own story. From her experience as a reader, Kadogo is aware that stories have titles. Also, each story must have a good beginning. For example, “One day…”. From her condensed story, we know that Mama lion went for a walk only to come back and realize that one of her cubs was missing because it had gone out looking for her. As Kadogo tells us, Mama lion came across the elephant and a human, and we are left

128 

E. M. LISANZA

wondering if Mama lion asked them whether they had seen the cub or not. As readers we are left to fill in the missing information in the story. At the level of grammar and punctuation, Kadogo has successfully used the past tense (i.e., a cub went and she “soe” [saw]), articles (i.e., a cub and an elephant) and pronoun (i.e., she), and finally she has used a period at the end of each sentence. However, her use of some of the grammatical structures reflects that of a novice English writer. For instance, using a noun followed by a pronoun in a construction such as “Mama lion she…” and also spelling errors such as “soe” [saw] and spelling mix-up, such as “there” [their], “than” [then] and “end” [and]. Nevertheless, over my period of observation, Kadogo had developed as a writer. To illustrate my point, let’s see the following story which she wrote during my last week of observation at her school. This story was from her own imagination. However, there is no doubt that this story appropriated a lot from the animal stories she read. baba [Father in Swahili] the elephant one day a  father  was playing with his children musa [Musa] was a boy and doris [Doris] was a girl but the father was not a real elephant musa [Musa] and doris [Doris] wen’t [went] to there [their] house and told mother there is an elephant coming

Kadogo is not only writing down a story, she is also playing on paper. As readers we wonder what will happen when the “elephant” enters the house. Kadogo has developed a storyline. In the story, we know Musa is a boy and Doris is a girl. Also, she lets us know that “Baba the elephant” is not a “real elephant.” Also, she uses a Swahili word for father “Baba”; this is a very common word in many households in Kenya. Many children call their fathers “Baba” or refer to their friends’ fathers as Baba so and so. In Kenya rarely do children refer to grown-ups by their names. Therefore, Kadogo is borrowing the term “baba” from her community and so are the other words she has used in her story. Just like in her previous story, Kadogo has given her story a title, and she has a good beginning like most stories do, “One day….” Furthermore, the text is longer and spellings are more standardized. She has used grammatical elements consistently. For example, past tense (e.g., father was, Musa was, Doris was) and articles (e.g., a father, a boy, a girl, an elephant). Nonetheless, as many sociocultural scholars have observed, children’s writing is developmental and

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

129

irregular and not necessarily linear (e.g., Dyson, 1989; Edelsky, 1982; Samway, 2006). For example, Kadogo could sometimes use periods, but in this one she did not use any. The next story comes from Rehema. Rehema had read this story a few days before she wrote the story. This story is about Ten Hares. 10 Hairs [Hares] They where [were] alaways [always] nice One  day  They mited [met] another Hare called Chares [Charles] and Chares [Charles] was a nice hare The end

Rehema in this story has ended her story with the phrase “the end” to let her readers know that the story has ended. She also has a title to her story. Through her story we know that the ten hares were always nice. And one day they met another hare called Charles who was also nice. Rehema has appropriated the words from the storybook to make them her own. From the dialogic view, she has agency because she has populated the author’s words with her own voice (Hicks, 2000). Her voice in this text is clear including writing ten in numbers instead of words as it was written in the storybook. On the aspect of grammar, she has successfully written in the past tense because she is narrating a story in the past. Also, her sentences follow the English basic structure (e.g., Charles was a nice hare). She has also spelled some of the words correctly. For example, they, nice, etc. However, some of her spellings are unconventional (e.g., mited—met). Over time and practice, she should be able to improve on her spellings and also expand her storyline. As shown in the following story, which was written two weeks after the above one, Rehema has progressed in a great way. Hare and chameleon but one day They where [were] friends  They maket [made] a nice plan They maket [made] a party They Aded [added] a lot of freinds [friends]

Just like in the previous story, Rehema had read this story a few days ago. She has given the title to her story just like the storybook had done. And just like Kadogo in her story of Mama lion and “shes” cubs, Rehema has condensed her story into four lines. However, this story is longer than the

130 

E. M. LISANZA

“10 hares.” This is a developmental step. As readers, we are informed that the hare and chameleon were friends and they planned for a party. Apparently, they made a lot of friends. This story just like the previous one is populated with Rehema’s voice as a child writer. To start with, there are no punctuation marks. She also misspells some words like “where” when she meant “were,” “freinds” [friends] and “aded” [added]. She also tried to generalize the past tense rule of adding -ed to the “make” but ended adding “et” [maket]. Therefore, according to the dialogic and sociocultural views, Rehema is borrowing words from the storybooks she has read, and hence the storybooks are mediators of her written language. Just like the other children, stories from the storybooks had really aided Rehema’s writing. We will have one more example of Rehema’s writing to see how much she has progressed as a writer. This will come under the theme of religion. The animals in children’s stories also interacted with human beings. Let us see what happens when the wildlife interacts with people. Our next story comes from Juma. my story THE Hanter [Hunter] 1. the hanter wet [went] to look For Food one day he So [saw] a lion and he triped [tripped] on a stone  he Fell down the lion was ran Faster the lion ate him THE END

Even though the hunter went to the forest to look for food, unfortunately he ended up being the food himself! This story is populated with Juma’s voice as a child writer. Just like Kadogo and Rehema, Juma is yet to get control of punctuation marks and spellings of some words like “hunter,” “saw,” “went,” and “tripped.” However, right from the title he wants his readers to know that this is his story, “My story,” and then he gives the title of his story “The Hanter [Hunter].” After ending his story, he wants his readers to know that the story has ended by writing “THE END” in capital letters. As a matter of fact, for sure this was Juma’s story. Even though he had read the story about the hunter and lion, in the actual story, the hunter does not trip or get eaten by the lion. In the story, the lion had approached the hunter because he had a bone stuck in his mouth,

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

131

and he wanted the hunter’s help. The hunter removed the bone from his mouth, and after that the lion was very thankful and he ran away wagging his tail. Therefore, Juma has completely changed the storyline. He is using his imagination. In addition, he is creating with language and borrowing the words around him. For example, hunter, lion, food and so on. Juma’s story is a good example of how stories read by children can cultivate and nurture their writing skills and imagination. According to Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1986) in his famous book Decolonising the mind, Juma like many children in his class is a “good … story-teller” and writer (p. 10). He has made his story more dramatic and alive. Nevertheless, there is another child writer whose remembrance of stories that he read was very vivid. His name is Jabali. The reader will recall from Chaps. 2 and 3 that Jabali knows how to play the guitar and also plans to go to Mombasa, the Kenyan coastal city, even though he won’t swim in the ocean because in his own words, “I am not a person who knows how to swim at big seas.” Jabali was not only a good speaker but also a good storyteller and a writer. Jabali liked telling stories. He was a friend almost to every child in his classroom. Let us join him as he writes the same story which Juma wrote about—the hunter and the lion. Story for the hunter and the lion once upon a time there lived a hunter  who  used to  hunt in the forest. 1st Pg Every day he used to find a spot most animals could be seen. 2nd Pg One day he was lost at the bushes. 3rd  Pg He toke [took] a few steps [in] front he had [heard] a voice he had [heard] if  something is  coming towards him the voice became louder. 4th Pg He saw a  lion  coming towards him with his mouth open the lion came closer he closed his eyes and started praying to God. 5th Pg

132 

E. M. LISANZA

After  pra  several  seconds passed nothing  happend [happened]  the [then] slowly  open [opened]  his eyes 6th Pg The hunter said To the lion my lord your [you’re] the King of the forest there [is] know [no][one] is strong than you the lion was  happ [happy] to here [hear]  that  7th Pg The hunter looked at the lions [lion’s] mouth he  saw [was] surprised to see a large born [bone] Stark [stuck] at he’s- [his] throt [throat] the hunter new [knew] the lion was try [trying] to tell him about the born [bone] the  hunter  said  to [him] my  lord shall I take out he born [bone] stark [stuck] at  your throt [throat] the lion was happy to  here [hear]  that the hunter  washe [washed]  his  hands  with  the water he had with him and remove [removed] the born [bone] slowly by slowly 7th pg The lion licked the hunters [hunter’s] hand and made away [a way] back to the bush and wagged his tail 8th The hunter was happy that the lion disapierd [disappeared] he even forgotten [forgotten] about lion he went  back  home. 8th pg

Jabali’s skills of retelling stories remind me of what Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1986) said, “I can vividly recall those evenings of storytelling around the fireside. It was mostly the grown-ups telling the children stories but everybody was interested and involved. We children would re-tell the stories the following day to other children” (p. 10). Retelling of stories by African children is a skill which is as old as the African society itself. Jabali is just tapping the same skill which has been part and parcel of his culture for centuries. This is a skill which should be nurtured in every African child. It is a skill which not only nurtures children’s spoken language but also their writing skills as we have seen with Jabali’s writing. His text was not

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

133

only longer than the other texts we have seen so far, but also his spellings were generally conventional apart from a few words (e.g., throt, toke, happend, disapierd, etc.). As already mentioned, these are developmental errors, and they show that the children are trying to make sense of the written language. Moreover, he retold the story of the hunter and the lion more or less as it was in the storybook. He remained faithful to the original storyline. In fact, if I had not observed Jabali write down this story, I would have assumed he had copied it directly from the book! When he wrote this story, he sat at his desk quietly. He had read this story for two days, and on the second day, he came to me after he was done eating his lunch and told me that he wanted to write for me the story about the hunter and the lion. I immediately gave him a piece of paper, and he started writing. When he wrote this piece, he was seated next to his friend Yusufu; however, Yusufu was still eating his lunch, and he did not say anything to Jabali till he was done. After the writing, Jabali read the story to me and went outside to play soccer with his peers. Looking at the conventions of writing a story, Jabali is narrating a story in the past tense which he did very successfully. He has given his story a title. He has generally put periods at the end of each page. To a great extent, Jabali is writing a story in a book, and each book is usually paginated. He has paginated his pages (i.e., 1st pg, 2nd pg, 3rd pg, etc.). He has borrowed the practice of pagination from the books he has read. Also, he is using his own style of pagination. Usually books do not indicate 1st page or 2nd page, they usually write 1 or 2 and so on. However, since Jabali did not write each page separately, a better way to paginate his work seemed to be by indicating first page, second page and so forth. This is being creative as a child writer. I guess if he had a writing book, perhaps he would have separated the pages. Efforts such as this should trigger stakeholders to provide writing books to the children. Another take from Jabali’s writing is that children experience literacy differently. For instance, compared to the other children in his class, Jabali was able to write longer texts with minimal grammar and spelling errors. The errors which Jabali committed like the other children were developmental errors, and over time with writing practice, he will be able to ­overcome them. Something else which really helped Jabali’s writing like many children in his class is that Jabali read and enjoyed reading stories. Thus, it is not surprising that his written language was quite developed on paper. He is a good example of how reading impacts writing skills. Definitely there is a major connection between reading and writing. Reading and

134 

E. M. LISANZA

writing complement each other (Samway, 2006). We will see another story from Jabali in the next subsection on religious stories. The next story comes from Ciru. As mentioned earlier, Ciru was the first child in this class to promise me, “I will write you a long story.” Moreover, just like Jabali, she was a good friend to many children in the classroom. Let us join her as she takes us to the deep sea. As a matter of fact, this was the first story which Ciru wrote down during my observation in her classroom. once upon a time a boy was living in the deep sea and that fish loved to sing and that fish had a  rat friend and the rat ra friend liked him too  mucs much and the name of  the fish was liviana and the name of the rat was livinai they want  wanted to Kill the shark the end

Just like Jabali, compared to the other children, Ciru wrote longer texts. Her spellings were more conventional, and more importantly, she revised her work. This is shown by the deleted words in her text. Interestingly, most of her stories were written in ink not pencil. In this story, Ciru has started her story with the common beginning of a story, “once upon a time.” She has successfully used the past tense (e.g., a boy was living, fish loved to sing, etc.), English sentence structure (e.g., The rat friend liked him), articles (e.g., a friend, the rat) and so on. In this text Ciru has a well-developed storyline. The boy living in the deep sea was a fish not a human boy! His name was Laviana. He loved to sing and had a rat friend called Livinai. Livinai loved Laviana too much. They both had a mission to kill the shark. As mentioned, Ciru revised her work. This is a good example; if the other children such as Rehema had revised their work possibly, they would have noticed some of their spelling errors. This was the big challenge which the children faced because they did not have the teacher’s support in their writing. One of the strategies which Ciru used like many children in her class was to use the words “the end” to let her

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

135

readers know that her story has come to an end. Ciru is yet to learn how to use punctuation marks in her writing. However, as we will notice in her next text under religion, she at least started using periods after the words “the end.” Another theme which the children focused on was religion. Religious Stories The children also read storybooks which were based on Bible stories. Apart from reading Bible stories from the storybooks, they also read stories from the Bible during the morning daily devotions and during Christian Religious Education (CRE). Moreover, all the children in the classroom attended Sunday school every Sunday. Let us join Ciru as she takes us to the land of Israel. Ciru read this story from the storybook in the class library titled “Moses.” a long  time  ago in  the land of israel there lived a boy His name was moses and in the land of cana Israel some people wo [who] [had] been sent to kill the israelts [Israelites] and moses was been sent by god to resqui [rescue] the israel and he obeyed God and he went and did wa wa  what God  sayed [said] the end.

As mentioned, Ciru is making progress as a writer in terms of punctuation marks. She has put a period at the end of the “the end.” Likewise, this text is longer than the previous one. More importantly, she continues to revise her work and generally uses conventional spellings. Revising of drafts is an important skill which should be emphasized, but as already stated this is a challenge which these children faced because creative writing was not part of the official curriculum. Additionally, Ciru has ­introduced the main character of her story, Moses, and told us that his mission was to rescue the Israelites. Furthermore, Ciru still needs to work on her punctuation and spellings. Nevertheless, as already stated, the errors which these children committed were signs of language hypothesizing, for example, “sayed” [generalization of past tense marker -ed] and “israelts” [generalization of plural marker -s]. Next, let us join Jabali as he tells us about Joseph.

136 

E. M. LISANZA

Along [A long] time a go there lived a boy , was a dreamer his  name was  Joseg Joseph Joseph had ten older brothers and one younger brother named benjamin but the father loved Joseph most . His father gave Joseph a beautiful coat of many slendi splendid colour. now the  brother [brothers] , Jelous [jealousy]

Jabali, just like in his previous story, has maintained the storyline in his story. He has also maintained conventional spellings to a great extent. He has also progressed in terms of the usage of punctuation marks. He has used two commas and two periods. However, he is treating three of the punctuation marks like single words. He is spacing these punctuation marks the way he is spacing his words. Building on the idea that children’s writing is irregular, in the previous writing about the hunter and the lion when Jabali used periods, he was not spacing them. However, here he is spacing commas and periods. Given that this story was written after the hunter and lion story, the assumption was that at least he knows that periods and commas are not spaced as words. But this is not how young children’s minds work. You may think they have perfected a skill; however, they may revert back from time to time. No wonder children’s writing development is not linear. It may be recursive. Our final piece comes from Kalu. Kalu was a friend to many children too. Just like Jabali, he liked telling stories. Also, he was a very curious child. The reader will recall when he asked Ms. Tina, “What if someone puts a sigara (cigarette) in your mouth?” And also, he plans to go to America to ice skate and see penguins! His story is about David and Goliath. about David once upon a time they [there] lived a little boy called david and a giant called Goliath. Goliath was 9 feet tall Goliath Shouting rumbled around

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

137

The valley David Killed a Lion and a bear david said at it self [himself] Goliath will be like of  the  [one of them]  the [then]  started fighting then Goliath so [saw] David taking a stone then said Goliath said I am a dog you are Hitting me with a stone then David started to spin end [and] the [then] He let go the stone it Hit between the eyes and David won after that He taked [took] the sword  and  cutted [cut] his head T ha t is [that is] the end

Kalu just like Jabali is a good storyteller and writer too. He has retold the story of David and Goliath as some of us may recall from the Sunday school. When Kalu wrote this story, he was seated quietly at his seat. When he had finished writing, he read the story to me. Kalu has managed to follow the conventions of a good story. He has given his story a title and ended with the closure of his story “that is the end.” Kalu is also a good narrator. He has successfully used the past tense. He is exactly retelling the story of Goliath and David as it is including some of the details such as David had initially killed a lion and a bear. Kalu has not condensed his story as we have seen with Kadogo and Rehema. He seems to have a good control of language apart from ­punctuation marks—he only used one period. His spelling is also generally conventional apart from words such as “taked,” “cutted” and so on. Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, these errors are developmental. Kalu is hypothesizing the English rules. He has generalized the regular past tense marker -ed with irregular verbs (i.e., “taked” and “cutted”) just as many children do with their first and second languages. Kalu, just like Jabali, liked reading stories, and there is no question his reading has really improved his writing skills.

138 

E. M. LISANZA

As Samway (2006) observed, the children at Nyika primary school have shown us that as writers we do not have to imagine everything. Stories are all around us—in storybooks and in real life. These are resources which children used to write their stories down. As Samway puts it, “It is okay to borrow ideas from other sources” (p. 103). In conclusion, the children at Nyika primary school just as the children at Mutituni primary school are in need of punctuation instruction. Additionally, these children have developed their printing skills in English to a great extent compared to the children at Mutituni primary school. However, as we have seen, this does not mean that the children at Mutituni primary school did not write creatively during their controlled times. They did this through drawing or through printing in Swahili. Moreover, although all the children in both schools are in the same grade (i.e., grade two), they are developing writing skills differently. Based on the writing of the children in both schools, I observed that writing is a developmental process, and these grade two children went through various flexible stages as they became more skilled in written language. These were: • Drawing • Drawing with labels • Drawing with phrases • Stylized sentences • Disjointed sentences • Stories Additionally, I observed that there was no much drawing going on in the Nyika classroom. My conclusion was that the children at Nyika did not need much support from drawings because to a great extent they had control of print. Furthermore, it is important to note that even though the children at Nyika primary school sometimes translanguaged in their oral speech, it hardly appeared in their writing. However, translanguaging frequently appeared in the Mutituni children’s drawings. My analysis was that the Nyika children had read their stories in English, and this influenced their writing. Also, as I mentioned, even during Swahili lessons, the Nyika children often translanguaged to English. However, the Mutituni children often translanguaged to Swahili, and as such Swahili was part and parcel of their writing as well. Even though the children in Mutituni did not translanguage to English during their unofficial conversations, they were able

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

139

to translanguage to English during their writing. They wrote down words and phrases in English. Thus, although they could not speak English, they wrote in English. This shows that written language may develop before the spoken language to a second language learner. Therefore, it is important to give second language learners an opportunity to write in second language as soon as they start learning the language. This nurtures the development of the second language. Moreover, looking at the children’s nonnarrative writings, for example, the writing of labels and lists, I agree with Newkirk (1987) that the children were appropriating and extending familiar forms of writing. In this case they were not writing down speech. The same case when the children at Mutituni primary school drew, they were not doing this in the mode of speech or telling a story. They just drew and labeled items they were familiar with. Sometimes they just listed words down as a record of some of the words they knew including the letters of the alphabet. For example, Mueni, one of the quiet children at Mutituni, wrote down the letters of the alphabet and gave herself what she called “Imla” (the Swahili word for dictation). As she did the dictation, she said the words loudly and wrote them down just as the teacher dictated words to the children. See Mueni’s writing below. ABCDEFGHIKLmOPQ rSTUVWXyZ Imla [Dictation] 1 tiger 2 girl 3 flag 4 food 5 book 6 Teble [Table] 7 teach 8 boy 9 door 10 desk 11 house 12 Shool 13 Ink 14 tree 15 box 16 chat 17 sun

140 

E. M. LISANZA

Moreover, it was observed that majority of the children in both schools generally did not seem to revise their pieces after completing writing as many adults would do. Those who did seemed to edit while composing. For example, they would cancel a misspelled word. The same has been observed in other studies, for example, Emig (1971) observed that twelfth graders went back and forth the text while composing. Furthermore, from the two studies, it was observed that children can write in more than one language. The children’s bilingualism enhanced their options for meaning making rather than limiting or reducing their options as it is often assumed. Finally, talk, drawing and reading of storybooks play a major role in the development of children’s oral and written language. For schools and programs, if they want their pupils to be great speakers, readers and writers, they have to emphasize these aspects and create room and space in their curricula. Join me in our next and last chapter as I discuss the implications of the findings of this project for pedagogy, policy and theory.

References Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In C.  Emersion & M.  Holquist (Eds.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.  Bakhtin (pp.  259–422). Austin: University of Texas Press. Britton, J. (1970). Their language and our teaching. English in Education, 4(2), 5–13. Dyson, A. H. (1989). Multiple worlds of child writers: Friends learning to write. New York: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A. H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primary school. NY: Teachers College Press. Edelsky, C. (1982). The development of writing in a bilingual program. NIE Final Report. Tempe: Arizona State University, ERIC ED 221057. Edelsky, C., & Jilbert, K. (1985). Bilingual children and writing: Lessons for all of us. Volta Review, 87(5), 57–72. Emig, J. (1971). The composing process of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Hicks, D. (2000). Self and other in Bakhtin’s early philosophical essays: Prelude to a theory of prose consciousness. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7, 227–242. Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. New York, NY: Routledge. Lisanza, E. M. (2011). What does it mean to learn oral and written English language: A case study of a rural Kenyan classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL.

5  THE UNOFFICIAL PRACTICES: WHAT ARE THE CHILDREN TELLING US? 

141

Newkirk, T. (1987). The non-narrative writing of young children. Research in the teaching of English Teaching, 21(2), 121–144. Samway, K. (2006). When English language learners write: Connecting research to practice, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Thiong’o, N. (1986). Decolonising the mind: The politics of language in African literature. Nairobi: Heinemann. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

CHAPTER 6

Enacting Children’s Multiple Voices: Implications for Theory, Policy and Pedagogy

As the Nyika and Mutituni children with their teachers would say in Swahili, “Hakuna refu lisilokuwa na ncha,” “There is nothing without an end.” In other words, “Everything has an end.” We have come to the conclusion of this book. I invite the reader to join me as I discuss the implications of the findings of this project in terms of theory, policy and pedagogy. I will start with theoretical implications, which will be followed by policy implications in terms of language, then curriculum and pedagogical implications, and finally, I will discuss my future research plans.

Theoretical Implications This study joins many sociocultural scholars (e.g., Dyson, 1983; Edelsky, 1982; Vygotsky, 1978) documenting that children’s writing development is irregular. Also, looking at both schools and also at the children in the same school, it was evident that writing varied from pupil to pupil regardless of whether they had the same exposure to language or not. The two case studies also inform sociocultural theory that children need to be approached as agents in their own learning, not just as apprentices. From the unofficial curriculum, it was evident that children are agents of their own learning. Additionally, in terms of language development theory, based on the two schools’ writing during unofficial times, it is clear that beginning English language learners can convey important messages in writing © The Author(s) 2020 E. M. Lisanza, The Multivoices of Kenyan Primary School Children Learning to Read and Write, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38110-3_6

143

144 

E. M. LISANZA

(see also Samway, 2006). They can do this through repetitive phrases like “I am…,” “I am not…” and “This is…” as we saw with the Mutituni children who were still being exposed to English language. Even though their oral language was at its initial stage, they were able to successfully pass a message across in writing. Something which they could not do in spoken language. Therefore, written language served as a precursor to the spoken second language. Even though as a first language, speech develops first in a child, from this study it was established that written language can precede spoken language in a foreign language setting.

Policy Implication: National and Local Language Policies A KNEC (Kenya National Examination Council) analysis report of last year’s [i.e., 2016] performance shows that the students who posted the lowest grades in English composition largely used ‘mother tongue’ to answer the question. The KNEC 2016 KCPE (Kenya Certificate Primary Examination) report says that the candidates ‘hardly communicated anything.’ (Standard Newspaper, October 30, 2017)

The current education language policy in Kenya states that “In upper primary (primary 4–8), when the child has already ‘mastered’ English and Kiswahili, English should then be introduced as the medium of instruction” (Republic of Kenya, 1999, p.  284). And the National English Syllabus categorically states that “English is learned throughout the primary school. In standard one to three is taught as a subject…In standard four to eight it is taught as a subject and used as the medium of instruction in other subjects” (2006, p.  2). However, as reported by the Standard Newspaper above, the standard/grade eight candidates who are presumed to have “mastered” English language according to the language policy documents are writing their English compositions in their mother tongues. In fact, the National Syllabus (2006) states, “By the end of the first three years, the learner should have a sufficient command of vocabulary and the language patterns, to be able to use English as a medium of instruction in upper primary” (p. 4). Therefore, there is no question that the marginalized Kenyan local languages are making their way into the revered Kenyan national examinations. This sends a clear message to the policymakers that the so-called national or local official language policies which marginalize

6  ENACTING CHILDREN’S MULTIPLE VOICES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY… 

145

local languages in education are not working. And that the candidates are begging the policymakers to change the language policy. In short, the pupils are making a case for the centering of local or first languages in their education. The failing of students in national exams should be a concern for all the policymakers and stakeholders in Kenya. The Place of a Child’s First Language in Second Language Development Based on sociocultural view, first languages are a resource in learning second languages which should not be disregarded at any level. It seems disregarding the so-called mother tongues in Kenya is not helping, and the children keep on falling back to what they are familiar with, their mother tongues. As a matter of fact, Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development (KICD) (Republic of Kenya, 2017) states, “Learning in a language the learners are familiar with will make it easier for them to construct their own understanding and look for meaning in their daily experiences, thus reinforcing their unique strengths” (p. 32). Although KICD acknowledges the crucial role played by the indigenous languages, we are yet to see the implementation of real teaching of indigenous languages in the country. From the two studies reported in this book, there is need to center a child’s first language in its education. The Nyika children are a good example of how a child’s first language is a resource. As we have seen, the majority of Nyika children spoke English as their first language. It is not surprising why these children were able to hold conversations very effectively with their peers and their teacher. However, it was the opposite for the Mutituni children during their English and content classes where the language of instruction and communication was English. These children were very docile. Yet when it came to Swahili lessons and activities during their controlled times, they held conversations quite successfully because although Swahili was not a first language to them, they had been exposed to Swahili in their homes before they started their schooling. Hence, it is important to center children’s first language in their learning. Additionally, although according to the national language policy, the language of instruction in grades one to three should be the language of the “catchment area” (e.g., Kikamba or Swahili) (see Republic of Kenya, 1976, 1999), this is unattainable because the content textbooks (e.g., Science, Math and Social Studies) are written in English. Therefore, it is challenging for a teacher to instruct in a local language when the textbook

146 

E. M. LISANZA

is written in English. More importantly, it is impossible for the pupils to read textbooks in their local languages when they are written in English. Hence, there is a mismatch between the national language policy and instructional materials. Therefore, there is a great need for an overall curriculum reform if for sure the government is serious about the use of local languages as languages of instruction in grades one to three. Kenya should emulate its neighbor across the border to the South, Tanzania. According to the Tanzanian national language policy, the language of instruction from grades one to seven (primary school) is Swahili, and content textbooks are written in Swahili. Thus, there is no mismatch in language policy and instructional materials. We are in a global village and the global forces are doing their best to either kill or promote languages depending on the status of the language in question in the global stage. Multilingual children such as the Kenyan children featured in this project are at the center of a global linguistic dominance; English is such a dominant language that often leads to children abandoning and devaluing their native languages (Hudelson, 2005; Shannon, 1995; Tse, 2001). In fact, KICD (Republic of Kenya, 2017) still in the same document which spoke so well about the relevance of first languages in a child’s learning acknowledges without any remorse, “English is a language of communication at both local and international levels. Those who master English reap many academic, social and professional benefits. In the school setting, success in education will largely depend on an individual’s proficiency in English [emphasis is my own]” (p. 42). So, the global dominance of English is making all the local languages in Kenya including Swahili valueless and irrelevant in education. However, this should not be so. The mother tongues of the Kenyan children should be valued in the Kenyan education system because of what the two studies have shown. Resisting the Dominant Ideologies: The Place of Translanguaging in a Second Language Classroom From this project it has been established that translanguaging is a resource which should be used as pupils get introduced to a new language. This enables learners to understand the lesson’s content and also participate in the classroom interactions. Also, it was established that translanguaging resists the linguistic divide that has been imposed on teachers and students in schools. Through translanguaging, a speaker is free to make use of all

6  ENACTING CHILDREN’S MULTIPLE VOICES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY… 

147

the languages in his or her linguistic repertoire. Hence, translanguaging should not be frowned at. It should be embraced as a communication tool in the education settings. Let us now turn to the curriculum and pedagogical implications.

Curriculum and Pedagogical Implications The Relevance of Written Language to a Child …Overall, KNEC report says that the 2016 English composition declined in percentage mean from 41.38  in 2015 to 40.25 last year. (Standard Newspaper, October 30, 2017)

The Kenyan stakeholders (i.e., parents, teachers and policymakers) are usually alarmed when pupils fail their English composition paper. However, as we have seen from this project, most of the writing time is consumed filling in the blanks, copying, dictations and so on. To make an impact on children’s lives in terms of creative writing, we have to start training them early. I totally agree with Samway that “Writing is a complex, cognitive function” (Samway, 2006, p. 7), and hence we have to start introducing the children to real writing from the time they get to pre-school or even earlier than that. Additionally, Dyson (1993) emphasizing on the relevance of writing to children’s life states, “Learning to write involves figuring out how to manipulate the words on the page in order to accomplish particular kinds of social work” (p.  17). From an early age, we have to show the children the relevance of written language. For example, children could write down grocery lists, lists for their birthday items, birthday invitation cards (e.g., Kadogo’s birthday invitation list), keep a journal and so on. More importantly, what we have seen from this project is that writing refers to construction of an authentic text with a purpose. For example, when Kadogo wrote a letter to her best friend Subira, that was a social act which had a message and served the purpose of assuring friendship. Also, when Yusufu wrote to his friend Jabali a note, it was meant to serve a social purpose, that of playing. Thus, in Kenya and other African countries, there is a need to treat writing as a social act with a meaning. Children should write for a purpose and write to a real audience. As Vygotsky (1978) noted, “Teaching should be organized in such a way that reading and writing are necessary for something, … something the child needs” (p. 117). In other words, “writing must be relevant to life” (p. 118). As

148 

E. M. LISANZA

we have seen in this project, a lot of precious time is wasted on endless filling in blanks and copying off the board which do not help children to become good writers. To be a good writer, one needs time and practice. It is important to note that children’s thinking develops through writing. Hence, writing should be treated as a vigorous “theory-building, theory-­ testing process” that mediates meaning making in a child (Samway, 2006, p. 7). It is obvious that when children spend hours and hours of their writing time filling blanks and copying words off the board, they are not making any meaning. The stakeholders in Kenya need to go back to the drawing board, that is, revise the writing curriculum right from pre-school so that Kenyan children engage with writing in a meaningful way. There should be real opportunities for the children to express their emotions and thoughts and write for an authentic audience (e.g., peers). The curriculum has to go beyond emphasizing form only (e.g., write neatly and legibly, write words, etc.) (see National Syllabus, 2006) at the expense of content. I am not saying form is not important; however, we cannot afford to be stuck at form only. There must be room for content. For instance, let the children write about themselves, their travels, their families, their friends and so on. Additionally, from this project it has been established that children are constantly figuring out how spoken or written language works. For example, they generalize grammar rules as they try to hypothesize how spoken or written language works. For instance, in this project children used the regular past tense marker -ed with words like “take” to make “taked” and “cut” to make “cutted” (see Kalu’s Goliath and David’s story). However, as they gain more experience with understanding of language, they revise their hypotheses (Ferreiro, 1980). Thus, the teacher should look at these errors as developmental and offer learners the necessary support. For example, teach those grammatical structures that the children demonstrate need for. Children’s Symbolic Repertoires: The Place of Drawing, Talk, Play, Storytelling, Reading Storybooks in Oral and Written Language Development As we have seen with the Mutituni children, drawing is a valuable rehearsal for writing. Drawing should therefore be encouraged among young English learners. Drawing is important in helping children create meaning. Also, based on both schools, talk, play, storytelling, reading of story-

6  ENACTING CHILDREN’S MULTIPLE VOICES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY… 

149

books and poem recitations are major resources in language development (both oral and written). These resources must be promoted in all language classrooms. The Role of a Teacher’s Agency in a Language Classroom There are three major lessons which came out of the official reading and writing curricula at Nyika primary school, even though as we saw, the curricula were as constraining as those of Mutituni primary school. These are the role of mediation, the place of talk in a child’s language and literacy development and the role of a teacher’s and children’s agency in a language classroom. Ms. Tina was a teacher who mediated language and literacy of her pupils. She made sure that there was room for children’s voices to be heard. It did not matter if it was a reading or a writing lesson. We saw how much language was produced during reading and writing times because of Ms. Tina’s mediating role. We learned so much about the Nyika children. Unfortunately, we learned very little about the Mutituni children during official times. If it was not for the unofficial time, we could have learned very little or nothing about the children. There is no question it was through the teacher’s agency as a mediating self that the children in the Nyika classroom had a voice and hence agency in their language learning. As mentioned, talking was allowed in this classroom. However, at Mutituni primary school, there was “no talking rule.” One wonders how children can learn a language without talking! Nonetheless, this rule took away children’s agency just as I observed in Lisanza (2011) during the English lesson in a grade one classroom. Comber (2016) states, “When children are silenced by the order of the teacher their … voices are simply paused” (p. 125). I like Barbara Comber’s idea that the children’s voices are paused because as she continues to say, “As soon as they [the children] can make an opportunity, their sound re-­ emerge, sometimes in secret whispers, sometimes in free spaces of corridors and playgrounds” (p.  125). The re-emergence of children’s ­ voices is well documented in this book. Although the children’s voices were silenced during official times in the Mutituni classroom, the children’s sounds re-emerged during unofficial times (i.e., lunch breaks and snack times). It was a plethora of voices and activities including those of composing. Therefore, children’s voices must be nurtured in every language classroom. Let us now look at the implication of this study in terms of the relevance of unofficial curriculum in language learning.

150 

E. M. LISANZA

Unofficial Curriculum: Children’s Agency at Work I totally agree with Barbara Comber (2016) that “We still know too little about how young children growing up in different places [e.g., Kenya] come to composing, what it means to them, and what they do with it” (p.  120). If it was not for the unofficial curriculum, we could not have known what Kenyan children in the lower grades do with their composing and actually what it means to them because there is no composing in grades one to three (see also Lisanza, 2016; National Syllabus, 2006). Therefore, unofficial writing was such a crucial component for us to know what the Kenyan children do with their composing. Composing for the Kenyan children studied served two major functions: communication and playing. The children communicated to their audience different aspects of their lives, for example, who they were, about their surroundings and so on. They also played on paper. Through the unofficial work, the pupils have clearly shown that they need space on paper and in the classroom to be free to imagine and explore. It is the teachers’ duty and curricula developers to design curricula activities and opportunities, which mobilize pupils’ capacity to act as individuals, in groups and pairs and as a whole class with common interest. Reading-Writing Connection From this project it was also established that reading and writing support each other. Especially for the Nyika children, their written-down stories were an appropriation of the stories they read. Just like Jaggar et  al.’s (1986) and Peter Lancia’s (1997) studies found, the Nyika children borrowed from the authors they read in the following ways: • Character in books, for example, the Hunter and the Lion. Children either wrote new material as Juma did with the Hunter and the Lion story or continued with the original story as Jabali did with the same Hunter and the Lion story. • An entire plot like Jabali did with the already mentioned Hunter and the Lion story. He retold events as they were in the original story. • Plot elements, such as vocabulary, setting and titles. Many children appropriated the titles read (e.g., Joseph and his brothers, Goliath and David, etc.)

6  ENACTING CHILDREN’S MULTIPLE VOICES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY… 

151

Therefore, the Nyika children appropriated plots, characters and the language of the stories read. It is no wonder that these children were strong writers because the stories which they read were a resource which they maximized. Other schools in Kenya such as Mutituni need to borrow from Nyika. They need to provide literacy materials to the children to support their language and literacy development. It is also important to note that the children at Mutituni, even though their literacy environment was not as rich as the Nyika one, nevertheless, appropriated the resources within their reach—the poems they recited and the textbooks. They literally read and copied stories from the English textbook. However, there was a strong message being passed on to the stakeholders (e.g., parents, the school administrators and government) that the children need books to read just like the Nyika children. The Place of Talk in Reading Instruction From this project it was established that oral language supports reading. It is the talk that surrounds the story reading which gives it power, assisting the pupils to connect what is in the story and their own lives. The classroom interactions at Nyika primary school were a good example of how talk empowers reading. Therefore, the teachers should provide pupils opportunities to talk during reading lessons (see Shanahan & Lonign, 2017). In doing so, the teachers will be helping the children to “crack the code” of reading. Oral language skills are the foundation on which word reading and language comprehension are built. And more importantly, as we saw at Nyika primary school, the children’s speaking skills and reading skills complement each other. Impact of Classroom Context on Language Development Classroom context is vital. Authentic and meaningful opportunities to talk, read and write are crucial for children to become effective speakers, readers and writers. Hence, the need for a rich literacy environment and a space for talk as we saw at Nyika primary school. Besides a literacy-rich classroom, physical space is very important for language learning. The freedom for the teacher and students to move freely is crucial. The teacher should be able to reach the students and vice versa. Free movement enables the teacher to observe students as they do their work and give instant feedback if possible. Also, the teacher-pupil ratio is

152 

E. M. LISANZA

important for student-teacher interaction. It is unimaginable how a teacher with 39 students would be able to interact with each child within 30 minutes which is allocated for each lesson. There is no way that the teacher will be able to interact with each student personally before the lesson ends. Therefore, the stakeholders must solve the issue of big classes in Kenya. Finally, I would like to conclude by stating that the ability to read and write does not develop naturally without thorough planning and instruction. Pupils need constant and effective interaction with print. Each classroom should be filled with print, storybook reading, language play and writing. Additionally, superb instruction builds on what pupils know and are able to do and provides knowledge skills for lifelong learning. Hence, we have to empower our pupils in their learning so that they are not just parrots in our classrooms, but partners in the knowledge production. For future research, I would like to see how Kenyan children learn to read and write in other parts of the country, especially in the coastal region of Kenya where Swahili is the first language.

References Comber, B. (2016). The relevance of combosing: Children’s spaces for social agency. In A.H. Dyson (ed.), Child cultures, schooling, and literacy: Global perspectives on composing unique lives (pp. 119–132). New York and London: Routledge. Dyson, A. H. (1983). The emergence of visible language: Interrelationship between drawing and early writing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 11–14. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 230280. Dyson, A. H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primary school. NY: Teachers College Press. Edelsky, C. (1982). The development of writing in a bilingual program. NIE Final Report. Tempe: Arizona State University, ERIC ED 221057. Ferreiro, E. (1980). The relationship between oral and written language: The children’s viewpoints. In M. Haussler, D. Strickland, & Y. Goodman (Eds.), Oral and written language development research: Impact on the schools (pp. 47–56). Urbana, IL: International Reading Association. Hudelson, S. (2005). Taking on English writing in a bilingual program: Revisiting, reexamining, reconceptualizing the data. In P.  Matsuda & T.  Silva (Eds.), Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction (pp. 207–220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

6  ENACTING CHILDREN’S MULTIPLE VOICES: IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY… 

153

Jaggar, A. M., Carrara, D. H. & Weiss, S. E. (1986). Research currents: The influence of reading on children’s narrative writing (and vice versa). Language Arts, 63(3), 292–300. Kenya Institute of Education. (2006). English primary syllabus. Nairobi: KIE. KNEC. (2016). Retrieved from http://knec-portal.ac.ke:83/Downloads/ NAC-11-11.pdf Lancia, P. J. (1997). Literacy borrowing: The effects of literature on children’s writing. The Reading Teacher, 50(6), 470–475. Lisanza, E. M. (2011). What does it mean to learn oral and written English language: A case study of a rural Kenyan classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL. Lisanza, E. M. (2016). Rafiki: A teacher-pupil. In A.H. Dyson (ed.), Child cultures, schooling, and literacy: Global perspectives on composing unique lives (pp. 98–108). New York and London: Routledge. Republic of Kenya. (1976). Report of the national committee on educational objectives and policies (The Gachathi report). Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (1999). Totally integrated quality education and training: Report of the commission inquiry into the system of Kenya (Koech report). Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (2017). Basic education curriculum framework. Nairobi: KICD. Samway, K. (2006). When English language learners write: Connecting research to practice, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Shanahan, T., & Lonign, C. (2017). The role of early oral language in literacy development. Retrieved from https://www.languagemagazine.com/5100-2/ Shannon, S. (1995). The hegemony of English: A case study of a bilingual classroom. Linguistics and Education, 7(3), 175–200. Standard Newspaper. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/ article/2001258802/new-report-reveals-why-candidates-fail-kcpe-kcse-exams Tse, L. (2001). Why don’t they learn English? Separating fact from fallacy in the US language debate. New York: Teachers College Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.



Appendix

#1, #2 #1a, #1b

Number of extract Interaction which follows immediately after previous extract 01, 02 Speaker turns T Teacher Su, Ka Initial letters of student’s name SS. More than one student speaking or reading Italics Swahili words Bold and Italics Kikamba words [  ] Interpretive comment

© The Author(s) 2020 E. M. Lisanza, The Multivoices of Kenyan Primary School Children Learning to Read and Write, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38110-3

155

References

Acker, J., & Hardman, F. (2001). Classroom interaction in Kenyan primary schools. Compare, 31(2), 246–261. Alexander, R. J. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. UK: Blackwell Publishers. Alexander, R. J. (2009). Towards a comparative pedagogy. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kasamias (Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (pp. 911–929). New York: Springer. Arthur, J. (2001). Codeswitching and collusion: Classroom interaction in Botswana primary schools. In M. Heller & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 57–76). London: Ablex. Arthur, J., & Martin, P. (2006). Accomplishing lessons in postcolonial classrooms: Comparative perspectives from Botswana and Brunei Darussalam. Comparative Education, 42, 177–202. Bagwasi, M. M. (2017). A critique of Botswana’s language policy from a translanguaging perspective. Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(2), 199–214. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In C.  Emersion & M.  Holquist (Eds.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.  Bakhtin (pp.  259–422). Austin: University of Texas Press. Britton, J. (1970). Their language and our teaching. English in Education, 4(2), 5–13. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. © The Author(s) 2020 E. M. Lisanza, The Multivoices of Kenyan Primary School Children Learning to Read and Write, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38110-3

157

158 

REFERENCES

Bunyi, G. W. (1996). Language education and social selection in Kenya: An ethnographic study of two schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto. Bunyi, G. W. (2001). Language and education inequalities in Kenya. In M. Martin-­ Jones & M. Heller (Eds.), Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 77–100). London: Ablex. Canagarajah, S. (2001). Constructing hybrid postcolonial subjects: Codeswitching in Jaffna classrooms. In M. Martin-Jones & M. Heller (Eds.), Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 193–212). London: Ablex. Carnine, D.  W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E.  J., & Tarver, S.  G. (2010). Direct instruction reading (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Merrill. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Chick, J. K. (1996). Safe-talk: Collusion in apartheid education. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 21–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clay, M. (1975). What did I write? Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann. Clay, M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse. Cleghorn, A., Merritt, M., & Obagi, J. O. (1989). Language policy and science instruction in Kenyan primary schools. Comparative Education Review, 33(1), 21–39. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94(i), 103–115. Cunningham, J. (2017). What really matters in teaching phonics today: Laying a foundation for reading. Curriculum Associates, LLC. Dyson, A. H. (1983). The emergence of visible language: Interrelationship between drawing and early writing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 11–14. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 230280. Dyson, A. H. (1989). Multiple worlds of child writers: Friends learning to write. New York: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A. H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primary school. NY: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A.  H. (1995). Writing children: Reinventing the development of childhood literacy. Written Communication, 12(1), 4–46. Dyson, A. H. (2000). Linking writing and community development through the children’s forum. In C. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research (pp. 127–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dyson, A. H. (2003). The brothers and sisters learn to write: Popular literacies in childhood and school cultures. New York: Teachers College Press.

 REFERENCES 

159

Edelsky, C. (1982). The development of writing in a bilingual program. NIE Final Report. Tempe: Arizona State University, ERIC ED 221057. Edelsky, C., & Jilbert, K. (1985). Bilingual children and writing: Lessons for all of us. Volta Review, 87(5), 57–72. Emig, J. (1971). The composing process of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Englert, C., Mariage, T., & Dunsmore, K. (2001 [2006]). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In C.  A. MacArthur, S.  Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research. New York: Guilford Press. Ferreiro, E. (1980). The relationship between oral and written language: The children’s viewpoints. In M. Haussler, D. Strickland, & Y. Goodman (Eds.), Oral and written language development research: Impact on the schools (pp. 47–56). Urbana, IL: International Reading Association. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Garcia, O. (2009a). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Garcia, O. (2009b). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A. K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson, & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual education for social justice: Globalising the local (pp. 128–145). New Delhi, India: Orient BlackSwan. Garcia, O. (2011). Educating New  York’s bilingual children: Constructing a future from the past. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14, 133–153. Garcia, O., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Translanguaging in bilingual education. In O. Gracia et al. (Eds.), Bilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 1–14). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Genishi, C., & Dyson, A.  H. (2009). Children language and literacy: Diverse learners in diverse times. New York: Teachers College Press. Hicks, D. (2000). Self and other in Bakhtin’s early philosophical essays: Prelude to a theory of prose consciousness. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7, 227–242. Hornberger, N.  C., & Chick, J.  K. (2001). Co-constructing school safetime: Safetalk practices in Peruvian and South African classrooms. In M. Heller & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 31–55). London: Ablex. Hudelson, S. (2005). Taking on English writing in a bilingual program: Revisiting, reexamining, reconceptualizing the data. In P.  Matsuda & T.  Silva (Eds.), Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction (pp. 207–220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hymes, D. (1972 [2001]). On communicative competence. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 53–73). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

160 

REFERENCES

Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. New York, NY: Routledge. Juma, M. N., & Ngome, C. K. (1998). Classroom practice and teacher motivation in primary schools in Kenya. Kenya: Educational Foundation Department, Kenyatta University. Kenya Institute of Education. (2006). English primary syllabus. Nairobi: KIE. KNEC. (2016). Retrieved from http://knec-portal.ac.ke:83/Downloads/ NAC-11-11.pdf Krause, L., & Prinsloo, M. (2016). Translanguaging in a township primary school: Policy and practice. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34(4), 347–357. Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. Vanpatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012a). Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655–670. Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012b). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641–654. Lin, A., & Martin, P. (Eds.). (2005). Decolonisation, globalization: Language in education policy and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Linell, P. (2009). With respect to Bakhtin: Some trends in contemporary dialogic theories. Retrieved from https://www.ipkl.gu.se/digitalAssets/1475/1475837_143bakhtin-sthlm-2009.pdf Lisanza, E. M. (2011). What does it mean to learn oral and written English language: A case study of a rural Kenyan classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL. Lisanza, E. M. (2014). Dialogic instruction and learning: The case of one Kiswahili classroom. Language, Culture, & Curriculum, 27, 121–135. Martin-Jones, M., & Heller, M. (1996). Education in multilingual settings: Discourse, identities, and power. Linguistics and Education, 8(1&2). Mbaabu, I. (1996). Language policy in East Africa. Nairobi: Educational Research and Publication. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Moll, L. (Ed.). (1990). Vygotsky and education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morson, G., & Emerson, C. (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of prosaic. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Muthwii, M. (2002). Language policy and practices in education in Kenya and Uganda. Nairobi: Phoenix.

 REFERENCES 

161

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2019). Learning to read and write: What research reveals. Retrieved from https://www. readingrockets.org/article/learning-read-and-write-what-research-reveals Ndayipfukamiye, L. (2001). The contradictions of teaching bilingually in postcolonial Burundi: From Nyakatsi to Maisons en Etages. In Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 101–116). London: Ablex. Nystrand, M. (1997). Dialogic instruction: When recitation becomes conversation. In M. Nystrand et al. (Eds.), Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom (pp. 1–29). NY: Teachers College Press. Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 292–411. Owodally, M. A. (2011). Multilingual language and literacy practices and social identities in Sunni Madrassahs in Mauritius: A case study. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(2). https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.2.3 Paley, V. G. (1986). On listening to what the children say. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 122–131. Phillips, B. M., Menchetti, J. C., & Lonigan, C. (2008). Successful phonological awareness instruction with preschool children: Lessons from the classroom. Topics Early Childhood Special Education, 28(1), 3–17. Pontefract, C., & Hardman, F. (2005). The discourse of classroom interaction in Kenyan primary schools. Comparative Education, 41(1), 87–106. Prinsloo, M., & Stein, P. (2004). What’s inside the box? Children’s early encounters with literacy in South Africa classrooms. Perspectives in Education, 22(2), 67–84. Razfar, A., & Gutierrez, K. (2003). Reconceptualizing early childhood literacy: The sociocultural influence. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 34–48). London: Sage. Republic of Kenya. (1964). Kenya Education Commission report part 1 (Ominde report). Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (1976). Report of the national committee on educational objectives and policies (The Gachathi report). Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (1999). Totally integrated quality education and training: Report of the commission inquiry into the system of Kenya (Koech report). Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (2017). Basic education curriculum framework. Nairobi: KICD. Rowell, P.  M., & Prophet, R. (1990). Curriculum-in-action: The “Practical” dimension in Botswana classrooms. International Journal of Education Development, 10(1), 17–24. RTI International. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.rti.org/impact/tusomeearly-grade-reading-activity

162 

REFERENCES

Sahni, U. (2001). Children appropriating literacy: Empowerment pedagogy from young children’s perspectives. In B. Comber & A. Simpson (Eds.), Negotiating critical literacies in classroom (pp. 19–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Samway, K. (2006). When English language learners write: Connecting research to practice, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Shanahan, T., & Lonign, C. (2017). The role of early oral language in literacy development. Retrieved from https://www.languagemagazine.com/5100-2/ Shannon, S. (1995). The hegemony of English: A case study of a bilingual classroom. Linguistics and Education, 7(3), 175–200. Sifuna, D. (1997). The quality of primary education in Kenya: Some issues. In K. Watson, C. Modgil, & S. Modgil (Eds.), Educational dilemmas: Debate and diversity, quality in education (Vol. 4). London: Cassell. Sifuna, D.  N. (1980). Short essays on education in Kenya. Nairobi: Kenya Literature Bureau. Snow, C., Bums, M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Standard Newspaper. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/ article/2001258802/new-report-reveals-why-candidates-fail-kcpe-kcse-exams Stein, P. (2001). Classroom as sites of textual, cultural, and linguistic reappropriation. In B. Comber & A. Simpson (Eds.), Negotiating critical literacies in classroom (pp. 151–170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. TELL Project. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.tellproject.org Thiong’o, N. (1986). Decolonising the mind: The politics of language in African literature. Nairobi: Heinemann. Tse, L. (2001). Why don’t they learn English? Separating fact from fallacy in the US language debate. New York: Teachers College Press. Tusome Teacher’s English Guide for Class 2. (2016). Nairobi: Ministry of Education. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Watts, S. (1995). Vocabulary instruction during reading lessons in six classrooms. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(3), 399–424. Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging and code-switching: What’s the difference? Retrieved from https://blog.oup.com/2018/05/translanguaging-codeswitching-difference/ Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes: A clarification and application of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development, 22, 1–22. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Index

A African children, 1, 13, 132 Agency, 7, 9, 28, 34, 35, 41, 53, 67, 95, 97, 99, 127, 129, 149, 150 Assessment, 74 Authoritative voice, 3 B Bakhtin, M., 3, 4, 8, 9, 37, 38, 66, 105 Banking education, 87 Bilingualism, 1, 2, 10, 14, 53, 105, 140 Blackboard, 22, 24, 25, 30, 32, 50–51, 68, 85, 87, 88, 97, 111, 117, 120 Blending of sounds, 51 Box full of treasure, 85 C Capable peer, 8 Catchment area, 3, 145 Children-controlled times, 9, 99

Classroom interactions, 10–13, 22, 28, 30, 34–36, 41, 47, 51, 57, 58, 64, 77, 146, 151 Codeswitching, 14, 21 Comprehension, 11, 45, 49, 56, 57, 60–64, 67, 73, 151 Construction of product, 73 Copying off board, 90 Creating meaning, 87 Curriculum, 19, 42, 45–69, 73, 97, 126, 143, 146–152 D Debate, 5, 93, 94, 104 Dialogically organized instruction, 11, 36, 64, 66, 67 Dialogic interactions, 11, 36 Dialogic theory, 8 Dialogues, 8, 9, 40, 47, 64, 68, 69, 78, 124, 125 Dictation, 73, 74, 76, 77, 82, 94, 126, 139, 147

© The Author(s) 2020 E. M. Lisanza, The Multivoices of Kenyan Primary School Children Learning to Read and Write, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38110-3

163

164 

INDEX

Direct vocabulary instruction, 69 Drawing, 5, 10, 14, 66, 73, 88, 90, 98–102, 106, 111–126, 138, 140, 148–149 Dyson, A. H., 1, 9, 10, 98, 129, 143, 147 E Education language policy, 2, 20, 144 The Enacted Reading Curriculum, 58–69 The Enacted Writing Curriculum, 73–95 Ethnographic case study, 2, 9, 13 F Filling gaps/blanks, 10, 73, 81, 85, 94, 126, 147, 148 First language (L1), 2, 3, 5, 20, 21, 25, 30, 47, 89, 144–146, 152 G Gachathi Commission, 3 Grammar exercises, 85, 94, 97, 126 H Handwriting, 57, 73, 74, 77, 80, 81, 86, 88–95, 97, 126 I Ideological context, 4, 46 Ideology, 4, 146–147 Implications, 2, 14, 15, 19, 140, 143–152 Indigenous languages, 3, 4, 20, 58, 145 Initiate-Response-Evaluate (IRE), 12, 22, 24–26, 29–31, 34, 42, 47, 51, 53, 57, 58, 60–64, 66, 69, 84, 85 IRF, 22, 51, 52, 57, 64

K Kenya, 1–4, 6, 9, 11–14, 19, 21, 28, 34, 35, 37, 39, 45, 46, 58, 61, 69, 93, 108, 116, 122, 128, 144–148, 150–152 Kenyan children, 19, 41, 46, 109, 146, 148, 150, 152 Kikamba, 4, 20, 22, 25, 27, 89, 106, 107, 116, 145 L Language barrier, 27, 28, 32, 41 of communication, 4, 20, 38, 40, 42, 56, 99, 101–103, 146 of instruction, 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 14, 19–21, 24, 25, 27–30, 32, 34, 38, 40–42, 68, 85, 102, 145, 146 policy, 2–4, 9, 10, 13–15, 19–42, 47, 57, 68, 116, 144–147 as a resource, 122, 126, 145, 149 Linguistically deprived, 41 Linguistic repertoires, 32, 34, 37, 52, 99–111, 120, 123, 147 Literacy, 1–4, 6, 8–10, 19, 21, 36, 45–47, 56, 58, 63, 73, 87, 99, 111, 113, 133, 149, 151 Literacy materials, 5, 6, 12, 47, 68, 73, 151 M Machakos, 4, 5 Marginalized, 144 Monolingual education policies, 1 Monologic interactions, 50 Multilingualism, 1, 2, 10, 14, 89, 98, 103 Multilingual resources, 11, 89

 INDEX 

Mutituni, 4–8, 10–13, 19–42, 46, 47, 57, 58, 64, 67–69, 73, 74, 88, 94, 95, 99–104, 107, 109–113, 115, 116, 121, 122, 124, 126, 138, 139, 143–145, 148, 149, 151 N Nairobi, 5, 66, 110, 116 National syllabus, 45, 69, 73, 88, 94, 144, 148, 150 Nyika, 4–11, 19–42, 46, 47, 56–69, 73–95, 97, 103–107, 109–111, 125–140, 143, 145, 149–151 O Official curriculum, 2, 126, 135 Ominde Commission, 3 Oral language, 144, 151 P Pedagogy, 15, 140, 143–152 Phonics instruction, 46–48, 50, 51, 57, 69 Phonological awareness, 51 Physical context, 68 Pictures, 37, 55, 86, 87, 98, 111–120 Play, 3, 7, 10, 11, 28, 39, 40, 42, 97, 100, 103, 106, 107, 131, 133, 140, 148–149, 152 Policy, 2, 3, 15, 19, 27, 30, 41, 68, 140, 143–152 R Reading, 2, 7, 11–14, 36, 37, 42, 45–69, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 85, 88, 94, 95, 97, 98, 102, 104, 111, 121, 122, 125, 133, 135, 137, 140, 147–152

165

Reading code, 46 Recitation, 11–13, 22, 25, 35, 47, 48, 69, 122, 124, 149 S Safetalk, 31, 42 Sea of talk, 102 Second language, 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 14, 29, 137, 139, 144–147 Snack time, 99–106, 149 Social context, 2, 4 Sociocultural theory, 6–8, 64, 66, 95, 143 Spelling, 76, 77, 80, 81, 94, 123, 124, 128–130, 133–137 Stories, 6, 9, 15, 34, 38, 40, 45, 48, 53, 55–58, 60, 61, 64, 66, 67, 69, 74, 77, 78, 98, 107, 108, 111–113, 121–140, 148, 150, 151 Storybooks, 5–9, 47, 67, 68, 98, 111, 126, 127, 129, 130, 133, 135, 138, 140, 148–149, 152 Subtractive bilingualism, 3 Swahili, 1, 3–5, 9, 12, 19, 20, 22–30, 32–42, 46, 47, 52, 53, 58, 75, 76, 79, 81, 85, 87–91, 93, 99, 102–107, 113, 114, 118, 120–126, 128, 138, 139, 143, 145, 146, 152 Symbolic repertoires, 10–11, 99–111, 113, 148–149 T Talk, 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 22, 28, 32–34, 36, 37, 41, 56, 66, 67, 69, 79, 81, 82, 85, 87, 89, 93, 95, 97, 99–111, 113, 140, 148–149, 151 Teacher controlled times, 95

166 

INDEX

Textbooks, 7, 10, 13, 35, 47, 48, 53, 67, 68, 73, 86, 98, 121, 124, 125, 145, 146, 151 Theory, 8, 15, 64, 66, 95, 140, 143–152 Translanguaging, 1, 13–14, 21, 27, 28, 32, 34, 35, 37, 40, 41, 46, 51–53, 57, 88, 105, 138, 146–147 U Unofficial curriculum, 2, 98, 111, 143, 149, 150 V Vocabulary instruction, 11, 46, 47, 51, 53, 57, 60–63, 67

Voice, 3, 4, 9, 11, 22, 29, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 47, 64, 66–69, 78, 81, 87, 95, 107, 125, 127, 129, 130, 143–152 Vygotsky, 7, 8, 10, 39, 50, 64, 66, 76, 94, 101, 107, 143, 147 W Writing, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 22, 25, 41, 46, 55, 58, 73–95, 97–99, 101, 102, 106, 110, 111, 113, 117, 118, 120–126, 128–140, 143, 144, 147–152 Written language, 9–11, 69, 76, 94, 95, 111–126, 130, 133, 138–140, 144, 147–149