Assessing and Producing the 'child-student'.
Helena AUSTIN
Peter FREEBODY
Many cultural sites, such as historical texts (Luke, 1989), television
(Luke, 1990), popular culture (Luke, 1991), kindergarten (Tyler, 1993),
childcare institutions (Polakow-Suransky, 1982), and classrooms (Baker
and Freebody, 1987, 1989; Freebody, Ludwig and Gunn, 1995; Hammersley,
1977; Speier, 1976) have been interrogated both for the versions of the
child that are constructed there and the manner in which suppositions
about the nature of the child are enacted. Such studies have
recognised 'the child' as a concept, as a socially constituted
category, historically and culturally specific, rather than treating
the 'child' as a natural category. This paper expands on recent work
which examines the routine interactive procedures by which the category
child is constructed and sustained in classroom talk (Austin, 1997a;
Austin 1997b). The theories of 'the child' built and sustained at the
site reported by Austin are here revisited in considering the
implication of these versions of the child for assessment.
The enactment of the category 'child' in classroom talk
Austin interrogated a novel, the teacher's planning, the classroom talk
and the students' writing produced in the course of an eleven lesson
unit of study based on the novel Magpie Island (Thiele, 1974). The
concept 'child' was examined in terms of the Membership Categorisation
Device (MCD) -'stage-of-life'. The MCD is an analytic apparatus
(Sacks, 1974:218) which describes the sets of categories into which we
commonsensically divide persons. A MCD is a collection of categories
that 'go together'. 'Stage-of-life' for example, is a collection of
categories which 'commonsensically' go together in our culture another
would be, say, 'family'. For stage-of-life then, we routinely orient
to a persons stage-of-life category as relevant, and behave towards
them in terms of their incumbency of the category say 'baby' or 'child'
or 'teenager' or 'adult' and so on. The defining features of a
category are culturally and historically determined.
The crucial point about categorization work is that it is a routine
member practice, not just an analytic device.
Members do not routinely use category concepts as mere labels, but as
methods for organising their knowledge, beliefs, perceptions, tasks,
moral relationships ...
(Jayyusi, 1984:136)
The routine categorization work of the members, in this case the
teacher and students, in assembling the category child as interactively
relevant in the moment-to-moment construction of meaning is available
in the everyday classroom talk. To set the scene for a detailed
investigation of the assessment of the students' writing, the
categorisation work of the participants will be briefly noted and 'the
child' as relevant to the classroom talk will be summarised.
In planning the unit of work, the teacher discussed with the researcher
the questions she intended ask the students:
EXTRACT 1
Initial Interview
17 T... WHAT DO YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT MAGPIE?
They should relate to the fact that he's young and free and adventurous
and a little bit silly actually. ((laugh))
- - -
19 T DO YOU THINK MAGPIE WAS SILLY TO
CHASE AFTER EAGLE? ...
(from Austin, 1997b)
Turn 17 embodies an assumption that the students, being children, will
relate to the character on the basis that he is also a 'child' (a
juvenile bird). The assumption is that they will relate to other
members of the same category and that alignment will be in terms of the
child category attributes 'young, free, adventurous, a little bit
silly'. Having determined Magpie's 'youth' (17) the teacher's question
at 19 associates youth with 'silliness'. The possibility of
'silliness' as a reason for Magpie's actions is utterly founded in his
youth. The cultural characterisation of the immature as susceptible to
silliness and foolishness is a resource in devising this as a possible
and reasonable question in the first instance, and points to the moral
work afforded by the use of that category.
The routine categorisation work which assembles the attributes of the
category child is a sense making procedure of all the participants on
the scene. In a later discussion with the class about why Colin Thiele
wrote many books about animals and children the students participate in
a characterisation of child interests:
EXTRACT 2
Lesson Nine
118 T - - - what sort of style does Colin Thiele have
(2)
Tonie?
119 Tonie Umm a sort of
(3)
nice style? Sort of kids style? Like he can make it really dramatic
but he can make it nice sort of//
120 T What makes it nice, I know you're using that word nice and I
121 Tonie Umm, well the way he uses animals and - like -- he puts it
from the animal's point-of-view and stuff [like that.
122 T [So you can] relate to it he does things that you think
(2)
you enjoy reading [about.
(from Austin 1997b)
At 119, Tonie articulates firstly that there can be such a category as
'children' who share certain characteristics such that a text can be
devised specifically for those category members. She then goes on to
define the features this category would enjoy: 'dramatic' but still
'nice'. Turns 119 and 121 assemble category attributes of the category
child as being enjoyment of fiction that is both 'dramatic' and 'nice'
and having an interest in animals. Tonie's description at 121 'from an
animal's point-of-view' refers to an assumed susceptibility to
anthropomorphism among this specialist readership (Baker and Freebody
1989:71).
The studies reported above demonstrate the categorisation work of the
members on this scene in assembling the category 'child' in the
classroom talk in terms of a stage-of-life Membership Categorization
Device. The talk assembles category attributes in terms of:
* childhood as essentially temporary, the child as always in a state of
change, as always developing, and what is more, developing in
accordance with a 'normal' sequence;
* normalized child behaviours and propensities, and,
* representations of child-adult and more specifically, child-parent
relations.
(Austin, 1997b).
The routine classroom talk establishes the category 'child' as relevant
and consequential. The participants at one time orient to the category
attributes as relevant and sustain them as relevant.
The relevance of the category 'child' in the teacher's assessment of
students' writing
The student's writing is an integral component of the classroom
literature unit and of the students' display, to the teacher, of their
understanding:
* of the novel;
* of the classroom talk about that novel, and,
* of the questions which framed the writing.
As such the writing is a pivotal site of assessment. Indeed, the
teacher articulates the writing as a site of assessment:
EXTRACT 3
INITIAL INTERVIEW
57 T - - - Now some of the kids will simply write the physical
differences, that's ok, that's alright, but it gives the better
children an opportunity to extend
The teacher here references the writing as available to her as a
measure of the students' capabilities. Her statement indicates that
she will be able to determine which students are 'better' by her
reading of their text. The students, then, are assessed by the teacher
on their reading of the novel for the purposes of the school literature
lesson, in part, according to the writing they produce.
The teacher's assessments of the students' writing are available to the
students, and the analyst, as the teacher's account of the ways in
which that piece of writing 'counts' (Heap, 1985, 1990) as writing for
school. The student, and analyst, can read the teacher's evaluation
for information about what features of the writing the teacher is
orienting to, on this occasion, in her assessment of the writing and,
as will be shown below, her assessment of the student. As the norm is
most obviously available to us in its breech we will here examine some
breeches. The following extracts are instances wherein the teacher has
evaluated a piece of writing as 'unsuitable' in this context.
In answer to the task,
5) Imagine that the two magpies are able to talk. Write a conversation
of what might have been said between them when they first meet.
Phillip's conversation, possibly designed as humorous, reads:
PHILLIP
(students' spelling and formatting recreated here)
'What's your name?' asked Magpie inquiringly
* 'I don't know,' she replied.
* 'I've an idea,' Magpie spoke again.
* 'What is it? Come on out with it.'
* 'Do you want to do it?' Magpie asked.
* 'Do what,' replied the female bird.
* 'You know,' hinted Magpie with a wink.
* 'No. I'm afraid I don't.'
[next page]
'Don't you even know what 'Do it' is?'
'Oh, yeah, I know (youre) you're going to
show me around - aren't you.'
'Yes, of course. You didn't think I (ment)
meant anything (fo) foul did you?'
Phillip's writing attracted censure - the teacher noted in the margin
(at the asterisks):
I really feel this conversation is getting out of hand Phillip - don't
you?
The final teacher comment on Phillip's unit of work is:
A very good unit of work Phillip - don't spoil it by careless, rude
writing please!
Phillip's writing has been assessed as 'out of hand' and 'careless and
rude'. In discussion with the researcher the teacher elaborates on
this evaluation:
EXTRACT 4
Final Interview
16 T And it's interesting. Phillip, who is at camp this week, you know
how he wrote three different endings, just look at the last one
17 R ((reads Phillip's written conversation))
18 T I didn't really think it was suitable
19 R No:o
20 T No:o. So he's feeling his oats a bit isn't he?
The teacher expresses the writing's unsuitability and the criteria upon
which it is unsuitable: 'feeling his oats'i. Cultural expertise
informs the analysis that Phillip's writing is unsuitable in its
reference to sexuality - evidenced by both 'feeling his oats' and
'rude'. It is apparent, then, that Phillip's sexual references are
oriented to by the teacher as unsuitable in this context. Member
expertise suggests that the 'unsuitability' can be described as being
on the basis of both Phillip's 'childness' and his 'studentness' - that
is, the criteria of this writing's unsuitability enacts an intersection
of the relevances of the child and the public forum of the school.
Dillon's writing is assessed in terms of his choice of vocabulary. In
responding to this question,
5. Imagine you were Magpie learning to fly. Describe how you felt when
you started ... what could you see? ...how did you feel when you
actually began to fly?
Dillon wrote:
DILLON
- - -
to go to the thunder box' tactic when mum
gave me a swift kick in the butt. I shot
throw the air and felt that wonderful thing the
ground.
'Trying to show off are you.'
'no'
'Oh yeah'
'Yeh'
'Here then take this' mum said handing me her
quick cheap life insurance.
'So thats what this plastic hunk of crap is' but
I took it anyway. I needed it because the next time
- - -
Dillon's use of 'butt' and 'crap' are questioned by the teacher in her
written comment:
Although I was happy for you to put your
own feelings and opinions into answering this
question I feel you have gone 'off the track' too much.
I would like to see slang and swearing left out of your work please.
The teacher's written assessment of Dillon's vocabulary is repeated in
the classroom talk - to Dillon, with the class as over hearing
audience:
EXTRACT 5
Lesson 4
5 T - - - Umm - Dillon took the liberty of -- projecting his thoughts
into the flying one I felt too far. You actually lost the thread of
the story completely, and, and literally you took the idea of flying
and wrote totally different story. Also umm some of the words that you
used I don't think are suitable for using in stories. Ok, it was very,
you've got a wonderful sense of humour - - -
Phillip's cynicism is censured. In his narrative, he writes:
PHILLIP
- - -
"No!" exclaimed Freddy Froglegs, when
Steven (a) shared his thoughts with his
father. "You've got to learn at school. I am
not allowed, by law or by Darren Hinch, to
let you stay home unless you are sick.
And that doesn't include WORRIED SICK."
"OK dad, whatever you say." replied Steve
miserabely. And all the time he was thinking,
"That's Life, good night. I'm Darren Hinch."
When he came home his father was (out )
out, but the lounge room window was open, - - -
The teacher's written comment is:
You have some lovely ideas Phillip and are
using good vocabulary. I feel at times
you are trying to be too 'smart' and
in so doing spoil the effect of your story!
How many books do you read with dialogue such as ... 'by law or by
Darren Hinch'? Think about it in your next story.
The teacher's comment indicates she reads Phillip's reference to
'Darren Hinch', an evening current affairs presenter at the time, as
inappropriate. This reference can be heard as social commentary on the
self-assumed authority of evening current affairs presenters. The
teacher does not 'hear' it this way it seems. The teacher's failure to
read Phillip's cynicism as social commentary can be heard to reference
a theory of the child in which 11-year-olds do not produce such
counter-readings of popular culture. The 'childing' work of this of
this comment is particularly available in the teacher comment:
How many books do you read with dialogue such as ... 'by law or by
Darren Hinch'? Think about it in your next story.
Such critical comment is available in many texts. The 'you' the
teacher refers to above however, is a very specific 'you'. It is a
child you, and, furthermore, an institutionalised school-child 'you'
who is, according to the cultural theory of the child reflected in this
teacher's comment, neither a reader nor producer of social commentary.
The assessment of the students' writing can function as an assessment
of some facet of the student's cognitive functioning.
In response to the, explicitly imaginative, task quoted above:
5) Imagine that the two magpies are able to talk. Write a conversation
of what might have been said between them when they first meet..
Anna wrote
ANNA
'Well then I spose I can't get back to
my husband and children'
'No I guess not, but we can start
again'
'Oh I don't know'
'Come on I've never had a girlfriend before'
'I spose you wouldn't have stuck
out here all alone my poor little
darling'
'oh'
'Well I'm here now and I'm hungre
take me to some food honey bunch'
She said kissing magpie on the cheek
Magpie began to blush as they flew
off into sunset to find food
The teacher's comment reads:
Do you really think this was the sort of conversation they'd have had?
Carmel writes a conversation in which the participants live 'unhappily
ever after'.
CARMEL
- - -
So they both lived unhappily ever after.
Mate lived unhappily ever after because she hated the island and Magpie
lived unhappily ever after because he hated Mate because she wouldn't
be quiet.
The teacher comment reads:
Do you really think this is what would have happened?
Both Anna's and Carmel's imaginative writing has been assessed as
'wrong' or at least questionable. The teacher questions Carmel's
conclusion. The imperative that stories for children have a 'happy
ending' had been explicitly stated in the classroom talkii.
Carmel has devised an 'unhappy ending'. Her unhappy ending is not
dissimilar to the actual ending of Thiele's novel. Anna has devised a
conversation in which the magpies negotiate their relationship. Their
writing has here been assessed as inappropriate. Having been asked to
imaginatively anthropomorphise, Anna's and Carmel's anthropomorphic
narrative is here referenced as assessably 'wrong', they have failed to
anthropomorphise correctly, they have imagined inappropriately, or
indeed, they have imagined incorrectly.
These teacher assessments demonstrate two things:
* the teacher orients to the students as children in her assessments,
that is;
* the students' writing is assessable as writing by child-students,
* the students' membership of category child is relevant to their
writing's assessability;
and,
* The teacher's evaluations demonstrated that the students' writing as
an assessable object, is oriented to as a site of the evaluation of the
individual. A student's writing is oriented to by the teacher as
available as a gauge of the maturity of the student. 'Maturity' is
assessable by many criteria, including here for example, suitable
subject matter, vocabulary, critical content and appropriate use of
imagination and anthropomorphism. These students referenced relevances
of stage-of-life category other than that which they are accountable
for appropriately displaying in this context. Paradoxically, a
student's reference to over-mature relevances can result in an
assessment of the student as 'childish or silly', for example,
Phillip's writing is described as 'rude' in its reference to sexuality.
Above are instances in which the students' writing has been assessed in
terms of its 'maturity'. Furthermore, these assessments can function
to assess the students themselves:
in terms of their cognitive functioning,
Carmel is asked
Do you really think this is what would have happened?;
in terms of their perception,
Phillip is asked
How many books do you read with dialogue such as ...', and,
in terms of their maturity,
Phillip is described as 'feeling his oats' on the basis of a piece of
writing.
The students' writing above can be described as 'precocious' in that
the features by which they were decreed unsuitable for this context are
features which can conceivably be appropriately part of an adult
narrative, both by an adult and for an adult. The complexity of the
'child's' maturity is demonstrated here. Being an appropriate 'child'
is relevant to being a successful 'student' in this context. The
category 'child' was here enacted in terms of its status as a category
in a stage-of-life Membership Categorisation Device with a clearly
discernible set of category-bound attributes evidenced by both teacher
and students. The students' participation demonstrates the paradox
MacKay described: In order to be a successful participant in the
enculturating institution of schooling, the students must already enact
this institutionalised version of themselves (MacKay, 1974a, 1974b).
The students are held accountable for their embodiments of the category
'child' and are assessed in terms of their enactment of the category
'child'. The data of this paper have demonstrated some of the ways in
which an institutionalised version of the child is utterly
consequential to these members' enactment of their studenthood. The
category child is here revealed as not just 'a set of abstract ideas on
which rhetoric is based; it is also a working category that is enacted
in everyday social experience' (Freebody, 1995a:18). The students'
success in school has been documented here as depending to some extent
on their apparently natural collaboration in adult theories of the
child as these theories are enacted in the subtleties of, in this case,
talk about literature and writing about literature.
Institutionalised schooling in Australia is organised as an age-graded
system that is founded in culturally pervasive theories of maturity and
development. Pedagogical strategies that aim to cater to the student's
'individual needs' do not question the fundamental premise of
development, simply gauging a student to be more or less developed
within a bounded continuum. Such pre-theorisations must be examined
for their potentially distorting effects. This is true also of
theories of, for example, gender, class, race, or religion.
Identifying and questioning such pre-theorisations of identity as they
potentially disrupt the articulated educational goals of schooling as
an institution and teaching as a personal pursuit is an important part
of the ongoing efforts to demystify criteria of assessment (Farrell,
1997; Freebody, 1992; Gilbert, 1989; Wyatt-Smith, 1997).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the teacher and students of '6F' who
were most tolerant of the researcher's extended presence in their
classroom.
Transcript Conventions
(talk) not easily transcribable
(...) untranscribable
- short pause, less than 1 second
-- pause less than 2 seconds
(2) pause in seconds
/ latched turn, no pause between speakers
// next speaker interrupts at this point
[ ] square bracketed speech overlaps
((comment)) transcriber's comment or description of context
italic speaker emphasis
? upward inflection (not necessarily a question)
i 'Feeling his oats' refers to a young person's initial understandings
of sexuality, commonsensically linked to the beginnings of puberty when
sexual hormones take a greater role in the person's physiology. As a
saying it is a derivative of 'sowing his wild oats' which refers to a,
historically male, person's sexual freedom prior to commitment to a
long-term monogamous relationship
ii Lesson Eight
1 T ((Reads conclusion of novel)) Ok, so ended Magpie Island.
2 Anna I didn't think it was going to end like that
3 T You didn't think it was going to end like that?
4 Tonie I thought it was going to be happy at the end like they have
have umm
5 T Who thought it was going to have a happy ending.
(3)
((Some students raise hands))
Why did you think it was going to have a happy ending.
6 Amber Because most stories do.
7 T Because most stories do.
- - -
13 T He had to start all over again.
(3)
It's a very interesting ending. As Amber said - a lot of books that
are written, particularly for children - have a happy ending, because
most people like things to end up happily. Why do you think - Colin
Thiele perhaps choose to end his book that way.
Austin and Freebody
December 1997
Page 10
Helena Austin Page 1 23-11-97S