CHAPTER 5

WHAT COUNTS AS INDEPENDENT WRITING

… even though the accomplishment of a scene as ordinary reveals that group’s norms, those norms are frequently most visible in their infractions. (Austin, Dwyer & Freebody, 2003, p. 38)

5.1 Introduction

This chapter begins the analysis of the social organisation of independent writing through explicating some of its activities and resources that are used to accomplish them. It establishes how a teacher works to accomplish students working independently, through orienting students away from her during independent writing. It examines sequences of talk, usually initiated by students, and explicates some of the ways that independent work with text is linked to “the construction of classroom order.” (Baker, 1997, p. 243) and contributes to the production of the institutional setting itself.

This analysis contributes to the thesis in three main ways. First, analysis of sequences of interaction between the teacher and individual students shows ways that the teacher works to orient students away from her to their own individual activity. It establishes aspects of social order in a lesson where the focus is individual activity rather than teacher instruction of a whole class or small group. This contributes to ethnomethodology and CA scholarship whose literature establishes the ways in which teacher talk ensures student orientation to the teacher, and topics and activities generated by her (Austin, Dwyer & Freebody, 2003, Heap, 1980; Heyman, 1986; Kendon, 1973; McHoul, 1978; Poole, 1993), however gives emphasis to whole-class instruction.

Second, independent writing in the EYLP is conceptualized as a teaching approach that requires independent problem solving by individuals (Department of Education, Vic., 1998a) as a result of the internalization of previous instruction by the teacher. Hence, although independent writing is a time of individual activity, its description gives emphasis to teacher instruction, and defines it in relation to instruction. The description does not take account of established orientations of students to the teacher during lessons. So the explication of a teacher’s activity during interaction with individual students, and the resources she uses to accomplish this, are of interest.

Finally, from the broader perspective of literacy theory, sociocultural research establishes that talk in literacy events integrally involves written language (Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Heath, 1983). It consists of a “synchronous interplay” between spoken and written language (Poole, 2003, p. 107) and other symbols (Barton & Hamilton, 2000). The chapter informs this body of work by demonstrating that independent writing is more than a literacy event that occurs in classrooms. It constitutes the institutional setting itself (Macbeth, 2000) through the indexical and reflexive interplay between “print objects”, such as books, and talk about them.

Initially the chapter introduces the writing task, and establishes the teacher’s reading of print and questioning as resources used in her interactions with individual students to orient them to ways of doing “being independent”. One activity, finding print around the room, is then examined. The analysis explicates different practices that organise orderly ways with print, displayed through talk and interaction (Freebody, 2003, p. 183), including those that breach the local order in orderly ways

5.2 Orienting to the teacher during independent writing

During independent writing the teacher determined writing tasks for all students. These became a common resource (Ford, 1999, p. 378) for reference, action and interaction between students and with the teacher. The written texts produced were also integral to interaction. Together the writing tasks and written texts were resources for individual action, and provided “contexts for the interpretation of actions” (Ford, 1999, p. 378). The analysis in this section considers some of aspects of these.

5.2.1 Independent writing task

The teacher determined that during independent writing a number of the students were to write about an experience that had occurred on a previous occasion in the classroom. They had made peanut butter and “jelly” sandwiches. The teacher wrote about this during shared writing at the beginning of the lesson. Others were to complete a writing activity about the days of the week, and some children were to publish their writing on computers. Once shared writing had concluded the teacher assigned individual students to their writing tasks and seating. From that point on, students had to take their places at tables and begin their individual task, either to write about the experience or to complete other tasks that she had determined.

Several students were told to sit at a table, the focus for the recording, and to write about making peanut butter sandwiches. Seated at the table were Wayne, Melodie, Cathlyn, Jamie, Dominic and Mckiela. The teacher moved around the room, sometimes interacting with individual students, sometimes sitting at the table with students and occasionally addressing the cohort. As well, some students left the table to move around the room at times.

5.2.2 Initiating interactions with the teacher

Although students have restricted rights as self-starters during teacher-led activity (McHoul, 1978), children self-start during independent writing. This marks out independent writing as different from teacher-led instruction and suggests comparisons that may usefully draw out aspects of the organisation of independent writing. Some students approach the teacher seeking approval for their writing. The first analysis will explicate two features of interaction that appear consistently when students approach the teacher with their writing. The first is that the teacher responds to interactions initiated by students by reading their work before directly speaking to them. This action, while appearing perhaps to be a mundane aspect of her work in responding to students, serves a number of functions in the interactions. One of these is that the reading of their own text becomes the thing that students must listen to, rather than an initial comment by the teacher about it. Another thing, and the second feature discernible in interactions like this, is that the teacher may use the text in some way in order to prompt a response from its writer. Both result in students being directed to some next activity. Thus the text is a resource for ensuring further activity.

In the talk below, although Zac indicates that he has written the whole page the analysis shows the way in which the teacher uses her reading of the text to clarify whether or not he wrote the page by himself. The sequence begins with a summons-answer (1-2) sequence (Schegloff, 1968). The teacher’s acknowledgment of Zac allows him to take the next turn (4). Zac’s spoken turn, together with his passing of the book, makes relevant what is “noteworthy” about his writing.

1	®	Zac:	^Miss Anderson ^ (0.4)
2			((teacher turns to face Zac))
3		Ivan:	°I [( )°*
4	®	Zac:	[I writ* the whole page ((passing his book to the teacher))
5		Wayne:	you:::’re prep ((leaning towards Melodie’s back))
6 7			((Melodie turns and smiles at Wayne/ Dominic glances at his book/ Mckiela watches Dominic))
8	®	Teacher:	on Saturday I went to Nan (1.0)
9			((Wayne looks ahead/ Melodie looks at the teacher))
10		Zac:	[to sleep up for the night*
11	®	Teacher:	[and (Po[p’s)*
12		Wayne:	now wha’ do I ¯do
13			((Mckiela watches as Dominic begins to write ‘e’ for her))
14	®	Teacher:	party and slept
15	®	Zac:	(1.0) over
16			((Dominic glances at his book/ Mckiela watches Dominic))
17		Student:	uh
18			(0.2)
19		Wayne:	what (0.5)[ word will ( )*

The teacher begins by reading the text (8). She pauses after the word “Nan”, which prompts a response from Zac (10), although there is no rising intonation which might seem to occasion it, and quite a gap before Zac supplies the word that the teacher’s utterance requires. The teacher begins to read again (11), at the same time as Zac speaks. Zac’s utterance appears to “tell” the teacher what is written on the page, after ‘Nan’. However what the teacher reads is different. When reading the next section of writing (14), the teacher uses rising intonation on ‘slept’, and pauses. Zac’s response, the word “over”, again follows a long gap (15).

In this way the teacher manages quite a complex repair to Zac’s talk, one that involves two “problems”. One is that he does not appear to recall what is written in his text, and second, he has used an incorrect expression (“to sleep up”). By reading his written text as she does the teacher gets Zac to supply the next word in his text, so completing the sentence, and she gets him to use the correct expression “slept over”.

Through her turn design the teacher brings about Zac’s repair of his own talk. This is consistent with previous research that establishes teachers’ preference for withholding correction of student errors in order to bring about their self-repair (McHoul, 1985).

In the talk that follows the teacher makes relevant (Schegloff, 1991) doing writing “by yourself”. She uses her own words for the first time to directly require Zac’s confirmation that he has written all of the text by himself and to indicate to him her assessment that he hasn’t (20).

20	®	Teacher:	[did you write all* this [by yourself? (0.2)
21 22	®		[((Mckiela watches as Dominic writes ‘r’ on her page/ Zac nodding ‘yes’))
23		Cathlyn:	was
24			(0.6)
25 26			((Wayne moves closer to Melodie/ Melodie continues to watch the teacher))
27	®	Teacher:	¯or did Joanne help you? ((joking tone))
28	®		((Zac nodding/ Dominic sits))
29 30		Cathlyn	Miss Anderson?, ((extends her hand to the teacher’s and holds it))
31			(0.4)
32 33	®	Teacher:	well done! that’s great what goes at the end of a sentence th[ough?*
34		Wayne:	[now* what should I do ((looking in Melodie’s direction))
35	®	Zac:	full stop ((turning away))
36	®	Teacher:	full stop that’s wonderful ((turns to face Cathlyn))

Although Zac confirms immediately that he has written the sentence (22) the gap in talk that follows “marks” the absence of a reply from the teacher. In the absence of further comment from Zac, she asks a second question (27). She names a parent who is in the classroom thus her utterance provides a “candidate” answer (Pomerantz, 1988), and her laughing tone acts to indicate to Zac her understanding that he is teasing or playing a joke on her. As a result Zac confirms that he has been helped (28). His responses rather than being contradictory show certain orientations to the teacher, and the teacher’s rephrasing takes account of this. Since he had already told the teacher that he had written the whole page, to then say he hadn’t in response to her question would be to admit to a lie. The teacher’s second question and her tone of voice provide an “out” for him however the interaction has made apparent that writing “by yourself” matters to the teacher rather than writing “the whole page”. The teacher has used the text, through her reading of it and talk that requires responses from Zac, to make Zac accountable for his initial comment and for the production of the text itself. Zac supplies words and hence evidences his own orientation to this kind of turn by the teacher where she withholds her reading of his written words in order for Zac to tell her what he has written next.

The teacher’s praise for Zac (32) is given after he confirms that he was helped to write the page. Her use of ‘well done’ can be heard as a response to Zac writing with “Joanne’s help” and a positive sanction of that help (Heap, 2000). The comment “that’s great” refers to the written text. It is tempered by indication of his error, although the use of “though” unmarked by any emphasis, makes the point but also down plays it. It does not detract from the “great” work that he has done. Zac responds to the teacher’s question, naming what has been left off the end of his writing (35) and immediately turns away. Although the teacher has not said directly that Zac has to correct his work, the way he concludes the talk indicates that this is his understanding. In this way the interaction functions as a directive-compliance sequence (Heap, 1992) that will result in the recordings of the full stop that has been omitted.

Importantly, although the teacher has positively sanctioned help by another, during her interaction with Zac, she has also made a distinction between that and doing it “by yourself”. She has determined that Zac does not seem to know what is written on the page, hence makes salient to him that he hasn’t written it by himself (Heap, 2000). In this way although help is positively sanctioned it is also made evident that “doing it by yourself” is what students should be doing.

Students may approach the teacher during independent activity for “help, approval or direction” (Merritt & Humphrey, 1979, p. 298) however initiating talk with the teacher during independent writing time is a practical “problem” (Sacks, 1989) for students, especially if she is talking with someone else. Approaching the teacher holding out a book in her direction but without any accompanying talk allows the teacher to respond to the non-verbal initiation of interaction when ready (Merritt & Humphrey, 1979). This action is frequently successful at gaining the teacher’s attention, even when she is interacting with someone else. During independent writing in this study, not only does the teacher respond to this kind of opening she uses the students’ written words as a turn in response and frequently in such a way that it then requires a response from the student. She may also use her reading of the text in some way that prompts a response from the student and makes relevant some “next action”. The next example is used to demonstrate again these aspects of interaction.

Dina’s approach to the teacher is silent as she holds her book up (2). Although the teacher does not respond immediately she does respond eventually by reading Dina’s writing aloud (6). The teacher’s elongated sound in “jam” (6) suggests that this is the next word to be recorded by Dina although when the teacher stops talking Dina supplies the word after ‘jam’ (8) thus completing the expression “peanut butter and jam sandwiches”.

1 2	®		((Melodie leans over and crosses out ‘t’ on Wayne’s page/ Dina walks up to the teacher holding her book up))
3		Teacher:	oh well you go and ask her ((looking at Cathlyn))
4		Mckiela:	drop the ‘e’ and you add the (0.3)
5		Cathlyn:	oops
6	®	Teacher:	^I like peanut [butter a*nd ja::m^
7		Mckiela:	[we::::*
8	®	Dina:	^sandwiches^
9			(0.4)
10		Dominic:	‘i’ [(0.6) ‘n’* [ (0.6) ‘g’*
11		Melodie:	[leave two finger spaces* ((begins to write ‘T’))
12			((Mckiela leaning on Dominic and laughing))
13	®	Teacher:	where you gonna find it ((walking away))
14			(0.4)
15	®	Dina:	jam (0.3) here’s jam

The sequence of interaction whereby the teacher prompts a student to complete her own utterance occurs on numerous occasions during independent writing between the teacher and individual students. Lerner (1995) identified this sequence in whole class reading lessons where a teacher “invites” students participation (Lerner, 1995) in the reading by leaving a “place” for them to supply a word and thus complete the reading. Examples in this study, during independent writing, show that in one-to-one interaction with the teacher, she requires the response. Dina’s utterance here evidences her familiarity with this exchange, when it occurs during independent writing.

As she walks away the teacher asks a question of Dina who is still standing holding her book (13). The teacher’s utterance requires that Dina “find the word” and establishes through its uttering that it can be found somewhere. Dina’s response (15) indicates that she has taken the teacher’s talk as indicating that she should look for the word, however the teacher has already walked away so does not confirm or evaluate Dina’s answer. By her physical removal from further talk, the teacher indicates that what she requires is some next action by Dina, to find the word in the room, rather than to engage in further talk.

The final sequence examined in this section will again involve the reading of a student text by the teacher in response to the student approaching her holding out his book. This time her turn is used to direct next action rather than requiring that the student confirm for her what it is that he needs to do, as was the case with Dina. The sequence of talk involves a “tussle” over whether or not Carl has finished and shows the finely tuned ways in which both display their understandings to each other using the student’s written text.

Although the teacher is initially reading another student’s writing (1), she orientates to Carl (8) when he approaches her with his book held up (7). Carl’s action with the book acts like a kind of “ticket” (Sacks, 1972, p. 345), warranting the talk with the teacher and beginning the interaction. Carl doesn’t say anything, since the teacher is reading Ivan’s text, so waits for her to take her turn in response to his initial summons.

1	®	Teacher:	[I like* (0.2) the sandwiches
2			((Ivan looks at his book))
3		Peter	um (2.0) I’m gonna thank Miss Gartman
4		Joanne:	^good okay you can draw a picture now^
5		Dion:	suh- (0.5) I’m doing that (0.3) Peter ((walks away))
6			(0.4)
7	®		((Carl holds up his book to the teacher))
8	®	Teacher:	at school we (0.4) made
9	®	Carl:	((shakes head)) no
10 11 12	®	Teacher:	yeah (3.0) come on (1.8) ((hands book back to Ivan without looking at him)) now you can draw a quick little (0.2) small little picture
13			((Ivan walks away with book on his head like a roof)

The teacher’s utterance does a lot of work. By reading the text (8) she determines, aloud, where Carl is up to. The emphasis given to ‘we’ announces it as the last word written. Although the word is emphasised it is not done in a way that requires a response from Carl. The teacher does not wait for a time for a response. The emphasis given to “made” together with the pause that has preceded it announces it as the next word that Carl is to write. In this way the teacher uses the reading of the text to indicate to Carl what he has to write next. Carl’s negative response to her (9) also indicates his hearing that this is what the teacher’s previous turn is directing him to do, and that he won’t comply.

In light of this it would seem that Carl’s approach to the teacher initially was to indicate that he had finished. The teacher opposes him (10) through her use of “yeah” (although this is “softer” than, say, “yes”), indicating both that in holding up his writing to her he was indicating that he was finished, and that he is to write more. She doesn’t speak further. Rather than providing Carl with an opportunity to speak, her silence heightens her opposition to him, in that she provides a place for him to oppose her should he “dare” (10). Carl does not take another turn and the teacher’s “come on” acts as a kind of “jolly along” although it still requires compliance on his part. Nowhere has talk directly referred to finishing or doing more writing but both indicate through their actions that this is what the talk is about. The teacher concludes the interaction by “returning” to her talk with Ivan. She hands Ivan his book, and then directs that he should draw a picture (11).

In all three examples examined in this section, the teacher’s reading of student writing leads to some next action on the part of students. This has either involved requiring that students name something that comes next, or the teacher indicating as she did with Carl, what is to be written next. In both cases either when the teacher determines the next word to be written, or when the teacher requires that a student confirm that they know what is to come next, the talk-in-interaction accomplishes the teacher as “knowing already” what is to be written next. When students produce the next word for the teacher i.e. in response to her utterance, they are not telling her something that she doesn’t know, they are confirming for the teacher that they know what to write next. This in itself involves a kind of “etcetera” (Cicourel, 1999). For example when the teacher reads aloud from a student text and ‘adds’ a word, the student “hears” it as being the next word to be recorded even though she does not directly say so.

In the entire corpus of student initiated interactions that begin with an approach to the teacher with a book, the reading of the student’s written text by the teacher becomes the teacher’s turn in response to interaction initiated by students. The written text, and reading of it, can be considered, therefore, to have an integral part in the interaction. Students may be held accountable for its production. It is talked about by the teacher rather than talking to the student directly, for example, by asking what the student has done and what s/he is going to write next. In this way the teacher talks to and about the written text rather than to what the student might say about their writing. As well, the teacher “knows” when writing is finished, and she controls student activity in relation to this. Although a student may indicate that writing is finished, the teacher may counter this.

Once a student has initiated interaction the teacher takes control of it through the reading of the text, and directing or determining of next action. The reading of the text, as her response, enables the teacher to avoid asking a student what they want. A question from the teacher would allow students to direct the course of the interaction. Instead the teacher’s actions use the text for comment and allow her to make directions according to what has been written. The teacher’s engagement with the written text itself appears to determine her next move, and consequently the student’s. In this sense the teacher finds the direction needed, independently of the student, by reading the written text. Therefore print and reading of it are used during interaction as resources to accomplish activity, including direction and control of individual’s activity.

5.3 Recourse to other activities

Some students approach the teacher when they want their work checked. Some orient to the teacher as a source of information about how to write a word. Student initiated interactions with the teacher of the latter kind may begin or involve a direct question such as “how do you write something” or “how do you spell something”, or may be “hearable” as a question (Mehan, 1979). This section considers sequences initiated by student questions and establishes the teacher’s use of questioning in response to direct students away from her and to other ways of writing words, despite their initial displays of not being independent.

5.3.1 Sounding it out

This first excerpt, where a student asks the teacher for information, contains both a direct question and an utterance that is “hearable” as a question. In the case of the latter, Wayne initiates the interaction with the word “like” (1).

1	®	Wayne:	l[ike*
2		Cathlyn:	[oran*ge (0.4)
3			((teacher bends to pick up paper))
4		Cathlyn:	[it’s this book Dion* ((shows cover of book))
5	®	Wayne:	[how do you wri*te li::ke? ((looks at the teacher)) (2.0)
6			((Mckiela watches Dominic writing/teacher turns away))
7			(2.5)

When the teacher does not reply, Wayne asks a direct question (5). In this way, Wayne “fills out” or states in full, what was meant by his previous utterance, “like”.

Thus the use of “like” initially involves ellipsis and is indexed (Garfinkel, 1967) to the “unsaid” question “how do you write like?”. Wayne’s second utterance makes relevant an answer from the teacher.

When the teacher does not respond again, Wayne repeats his question (8). This time there is a slight break before the word “like” which emphasises it. The teacher’s use of “like” initially in her turn (10) acts as a kind of “receipt” of the word and the student’s question and in prefacing her own question connects it directly to Wayne’s in a sequential fashion.

8	®	Wayne:	how do you write (0.4) like?
9			((Mckiela begins to write ‘e’))
10	®	Teacher:	like ((leans over Wayne)) what does like start with?
11 12 13			((Mckiela looks at Dominic’s work/teacher notices Mckiela/ Cathlyn looks at Mckiela then the teacher who opens and closes her mouth))
14	®	Wayne:	(0.8) um (0.4) a [‘c’* (looking at the teacher))
15		Dominic:	[ca*n I write (eleven) sentences
16 17 18	®	Teacher:	(0.2) yeah write me another sentence! (0.8) that’s what that’s what I expect from a [grade one but you’re nearly grade two now ((begins to walk away))

Importantly however, the teacher has not given the answer that Wayne’s question requires, instead she has responded to a question with a question which requires that Wayne name the first letter of the word himself. His response involves hesitations, and his answer (14) is overlapped by the talk of another student who has directed a question at the teacher. Her next utterance (16) is a response to that student. She does not respond to Wayne’s utterance (14) although it was “hearable” as tentative and requiring confirmation from the teacher. Since teachers regularly supply comments on the “suitability” of students’ answers (Mehan, 1979) during whole class instruction, the omission here is salient, from an analyst’s perspective.

It is useful to re-iterate the particular features of this sequence. It involves questions from a student; direct questions and an utterance described as “hearable” as a question. It also involves a question-question sequence whereby the teacher asks a question in response to a question. Each of these aspects of talk is found repeatedly in student-teacher interactions when a student asks the teacher how to write a word. Since questions, as the first parts of adjacency pairs, powerfully require answers (Austin et al., 2003), the failure of the teacher to provide these displays her right to do so. Although, in ordinary conversation, the omission of answers might be taken as “out of the ordinary” (Austin et al., 2003), during independent writing they appear to be ordinary.

A second example is used to demonstrate again that that the teacher’s response to a word directed at her, shows that she takes it to be a question about how to write the word. And in turn her response, to say or sound a word, may be heard as a question. In the case of Dominic asking the teacher for the spelling of ‘very’, the interaction begins when he says the word ‘very’ (1). This parallels the way in which Wayne began his interaction involving ‘like’, demonstrated in the previous example.

1	®	Dominic:	very ((looking at the teacher))
2		Cathlyn:	‘b’:: ((writing))
3			(0.8)
4	®	Teacher:	it was [very (0.6) ¯very*
5		Cathlyn:	[‘u’ ((writing))* (0.4) ‘t’ (0.2) ‘t’ [(0.2) ‘e’ (0.4)
6		Teacher:	yes
7		Student:	‘s’
8			(0.5)
9		Cathlyn:	‘r’

Here, the teacher’s response (4) indicates that she hears Dominic’s utterance as directed at her. Her reply places the word in the sentence that Dominic has written so far. The rising intonation accompanied by a pause appears to require a response from Dominic. When there isn’t one, she repeats the word with falling intonation. The teacher’s responses indicate that she heard Dominic’s initial utterance as a question. The teacher shifts her attention from Dominic to Cathlyn (6), and there is no reply from Dominic. This in itself is also not unusual, as the examples in this section will show. The teacher often does not wait to hear the response given by a student, or to evaluate the answer.

Dominic resumes his talk with the teacher (12). This time he asks a direct question of her. His utterance again echoes that of Wayne in the previous example since an initial one-word utterance (1) is then stated in full to produce a direct question (12). In this way Dominic indicates to the teacher that he still needs to know the word and perhaps works to query her previous response (4).

10			(0.5)
11			((Mckiela looking in Dominic’s direction))
12	®	Dominic:	how do you spell very?
13	®	Teacher:	(0.4) what does very start with (0.2) veah (1.0)
14			((Mckiela writes ‘a’))
15	®	Dominic:	‘v’ ((begins to write))
16			(1.0)

The teacher replies to Dominic’s question with a question (13). Her utterance now is more specific, just as Dominic’s question has been. She requires that he tell her the first letter of the word. She asks a question and makes a sound. Then she waits for a response. The teacher’s response, like Dominic’s question, is a more fully explicated version of her first utterance in response to Dominic. So both the teacher and Dominic have elaborated on their previous talk, and accounted for it. The teacher does not tell Dominic the answer however and she does not evaluate his answer (15) to her question.

During this interaction, the teacher is clearly instructing, on a one-to-one basis, the application of a method for working out how to record words. In this way her turns work as a “vehicle for instruction” (Lerner, 1995, p. 122). Her initiation act functions to make students “work it out” for themselves by listening to the sounds she makes or by making the sounds themselves, and then naming the letter. This focuses student listening on a particular letter. Her question and the sounds 'point' to a letter. A correct reply may involve listening to the teacher or even watching her lips. She doesn’t say “work it out for yourself”, but these questions oblige using a certain method to arrive at the correct answer (Baker & Freebody, 1993; Psathas, 1992). Thus the working out of a word in this way appears to require the systematic sounding out of each letter in order to “hear” and then name individual letters.

In the following segment of talk, the teacher specifically directs the student to sound it out, so her utterance contains in full what it is that is frequently unsaid: that the student can say the word themselves, in order to hear, name and record the sound of the letter/s.

®	Ivan:	excuse me Miss Middleton how do you spell jam
	Cathlyn:	Wayne ((looks up at Wayne))
		(1.0)
®	Teacher:	sound it out what does jam start with
®	Ivan:	‘g’

Ivan’s response indicates his hearing that he should name the letter out loud for the teacher. Although incorrect the teacher appears not to have evaluated his response. As is the case with a number of sequences like this, the teacher’s question requires that the student should work out that letter and record it, not necessarily that the teacher will evaluate an answer to her question. So questions like this do not form a question-answer-evaluation sequence (Mehan, 1979) found in much teacher-led whole class activity where the teacher asks known-answer questions and evaluates student responses.

In the three examples considered above talk initiated by students involves an initial display of not being able to do something and an orientation to asking for the information from the teacher. Her responses require some next action from the students in order that they write the word for themselves. The teacher does not tell how to write words. Instead, she requires that students work out words for themselves by sounding out or by listening to her own talk and naming the letter. The teacher’s use of a question to do this obliges the student to answer it and turns around the chaining rule (Sacks, 1972, p. 244) or turn-taking. Her directive and question powerfully turns her from being the “answerer” to the “questioner”. The teacher may continue to ask questions should she choose. The teacher’s use of a question in this way involves withholding information, therefore not telling, and requires students to do certain things so that they begin to answer their own questions. Withholding information in this way also involves taking control of the talk and of what is talked about in order to produce independence.

5.3.2 Finding it

The teacher’s use of a question in response to a question enables her to project students towards particular trajectories or actions. Sometimes, as the following example will show, this will involve requiring that students “find” words.

®	Dina:	how do you write peanut butter?
®	Teacher:	where are you going to find peanut butter?,
	Ivan:	the supermarket ( )

The teacher’s use of “find” is indexed to writing that is somewhere around or in the room. Her question both points Dina to a particular action, rather than telling her directly to go and find the word in the room, and in doing so makes apparent to her that the word is “findable” in the room.

Ivan’s response to the exchange he has overheard, makes “strange” talk about “finding” when those things are actually written words. It disrupts what is otherwise a seamless exchange between a student and the teacher by breaching the ordinary classroom activity of talk about “finding a word”. The word “find”, as the teacher uses it, may be regarded as a term “used in a specialized sense” (Freebody, 2003) and related to the institutional character of the interactions involving it. The teacher’s directive to find a word also indicates that the activity of finding a word and copying it is an action sanctioned by her and thus may be considered to be doing “independent writing” (Heap, 2000).

The teacher’s questions, when they are responses to questions, are a type of known answer question (Baker & Freebody, 1993) typical of whole-class teacher-led instruction (Mehan. 1979). However during independent writing they are hearable as the teacher withholding information so as to require independent activity on the part of students. In each case the teacher’s question provides some information: the sound of the word, “pointing” to the first letter of it or directing that it can be “found” somewhere. The teacher doesn’t say “work it out yourself” but uses her talk to require that this be the case. In doing so she displays her own orientation to doing “being the teacher” in an independent writing classroom.

In the final example, the interaction between Ivan and the teacher, also involves an utterance that is hearable as a question (1), and a question in response that involves finding the word (7). The teacher does not decline to answer the question, she simply treats it as though he isn’t asking to be told and avoids telling through the use of her own question.

1	®	Ivan:	peanut butter
2			((Mckiela begins to write ‘l’))
3		Wayne:	(0.2) p[eanut butter*
4 5		Dominic:	[cos if you *didn’t like them we could go ((points at page))
6			((Mckiela looks at Dominic's book))
7	®	Teacher:	where you gonna find [it?*
8		Dominic:	[I* (0.5)
9	®	Teacher:	peanut butter
10		Dominic:	[/d/ (0.2) /i/ ((looks to teacher))
11			[((Melodie points to words on her page))

The teacher’s answer, involves the question and after a pause, a repetition of the words that Ivan has asked her to spell (9). The repetition works to require an answer from Ivan. However, he appears not to reply to the teacher’s question.

The teacher’s next turn is directed at Lincoln who is sitting beside Ivan (12). Her use of “where else” (14) suggests that some action has occurred as a response to her previous question about finding “peanut butter”. The talk works to require Lincoln to name another source for writing the word.

12	®	Teacher:	Linc[oln?
13		Dominic:	[/dn’t/ (1.0) didn’t [(1.0) like* (1.0)
14 15	®	Teacher:	[where else can you find peanut butter though ((walking away))*
16		Dominic:	the (0.4) peanut (0.2) butter (0.2) sandwich
17 18			((Mckiela writes bottom of ‘i’/ Cathlyn glances at Jamie’s book))
19	®	Ivan:	in the supermar- !ket (0.4) ((laughs))

Here the teacher’s talk indicates to the student that the words ‘peanut butter’ are “findable” somewhere else in the room and works to require him to find it. The teacher’s utterance, through the use of ‘though’, acknowledges one source for finding the words that Lachlan may have physically indicated to her. However she does not accept this source as the one to be used. Nor does she stay to hear a response.

Ivan, as on a previous occasion, makes a comment about this interaction involving finding “peanut butter” (19), as the teacher moves away. Although Ivan’s comment might appear initially to take the teacher’s literally, his laughing makes it apparent that it is a joke, involving a play on the teacher’s questions, and displaying nevertheless that he does understand the teacher’s talk. His joke involves common sense understandings about peanut butter as well as the way in which the words “peanut butter’ are spoken about in the classroom.

5.3.3 Requiring action

The teacher’s responses to questions about how to write words vary, and can therefore be considered to be sensitive to specifics (Baker, Emmison & Firth, 2001). However they also show regularities across interactions. The analysis has established that the use of a question by the teacher accomplishes control of the turn-taking and requires action on the part of individual students. Although not limited to interactions in the classroom (see Frankel, 1990) and found in ordinary conversations (see Sacks, 1972; Jefferson, 1972), here questions given in response to questions work to accomplish instructional activity. That is they direct students to ways of recording words that they should use rather than asking the teacher. However, the interaction varies significantly from that of whole class teacher-led interaction whereby a question initiated by a teacher results in a three-part sequence (Mehan, 1979) that is complete when evaluation is supplied by the teacher.

In the interactions examined in this section, the teacher frequently omits evaluating responses that the students give to her questions. Thus the interaction differs from that of whole class teacher-led instruction whereby questions asked by the teacher provide for the “sequential possibility of an evaluation” (Lerner, 1995, p. 115) and initiate sequences that are not complete until evaluation occurs. Here, the teacher frequently does not evaluate answers. In this way she makes relevant independent “next” action by the student rather than further interaction with the teacher.

So another distinctive and common feature in the examples given above is that, unlike whole-class teacher-led interaction where the teacher’s evaluation act completes a sequence, and has a critical role to play in the on-going sequence of talk, here the evaluation act is frequently missing. This works to require action on the part of students. It makes them accountable for producing the right answer in response to the teacher’s question and recording that, without the teacher evaluating the answer “then and there”. Her question, given in reply to a question asked by a student, indicates next activity to the student. The omission of evaluation requires that next activity rather than further interaction with the teacher. Therefore her questions frequently work as directives that require compliance by students, rather than as questions that require answers that she will evaluate. In that sense she is instructing students in “what to do” when they don’t know how to write a word in independent writing. As well, the omission of the evaluation slot means that the teacher concludes her interaction with individual students while they are doing something, rather than engaging in what to do next.

5.4 Local order of independent writing

Analysis in the previous section established the teacher’s use of questions to require sounding out or finding words around the room, both positively sanctioned activities that count as doing “independent writing” (Heap, 2000). The analysis here will explicate uses of print on the walls and in commercial books, the teacher’s shared writing and individual texts produced by students, as independent writing activity. It will be used also to demonstrate a local order involving the use of print by individuals, which results in material resources becoming social resources that are used by teachers and students to organise their activity and institutional relations (Baker, 1991, p. 169). The teacher’s re-direction of activity by individual students is a salient feature, and contributes to differences in “what counts as independent writing” for individuals.

5.4.1 Word charts

The analysis of the first segment will be used show the teacher’s direction of Cathlyn’s actions in order to get her to write without recourse to printed material that she has found. The result of this is an ordering by the teacher of what is appropriate and not appropriate activity during writing time for Cathlyn. In particular the teacher’s talk can be heard to require Cathlyn to write words herself without copying, in other words to not attend to the print that was in the room.

Cathlyn’s interaction with the teacher begins with a question that will enable a display of knowledge. It indicates Cathlyn’s knowledge that finding words in the room is “doing independent writing” because it is sanctioned positively by the teacher. Cathlyn’s use of “guess where” invites a response from the teacher however the gap in the talk indicates that this isn’t forthcoming and so prompts Cathlyn’s next action, to indicate where the word can be found.

®	Cathlyn:	guess where I can find yummy (1.0 ) ((pointing)) up there
		(1.2)
®	Teacher:	you can too but I [reckon you could write it yourself anyway
		[((Cathlyn lets go of teacher’s hand))
		[((Cathlyn writing))*

The teacher’s response displays her understanding that Cathlyn is going to write the word ‘yummy’ but works to get her not to copy it. While she agrees that Cathlyn is correct that the word is “findable” on the word chart, her use of “but” signals another course of action. The word “reckon” gives an estimation that Cathlyn doesn’t need to copy the word and works almost like a “challenge”, so softens what is actually a directive that she should write it herself even though the word is visible and could be copied. The teacher’s use of ‘anyway’ acknowledges that the word could be copied, but also indicates that Cathlyn doesn’t need to copy it.

In this way the teacher requires that Cathlyn “not look” at the word ‘yummy’ which is written on a wall chart only some metres from her. So for the teacher, Cathlyn is doing independent writing by ignoring a word that is easily visible, in order to write it without copying. This talk demonstrates that although finding a word is a positively sanctioned activity during independent writing, the teacher’s talk requires that Cathlyn do something else. Although in a sense, the teacher’s words do not give a direct negative sanction, they can be heard as indicating what Cathlyn should do. In other words that teacher has made another course of action “conditionally relevant, and possibly consequential.” (Heap, 2000, p. 86).

The video recording shows that Cathlyn copies the word written on the wall, but does this covertly, appearing to sit staring upwards but in fact looking to the word on the wall and copying it. This secrecy indicates Cathlyn has understood the teacher’s words as requiring her to write it herself, otherwise, there would be no need for Cathlyn to “hide” her copying. In this way Cathlyn avoids the possibility of negative sanctions by the teacher (Heap, 2000).

5.4.2 Sanctions

The teacher directs or requires some children to use the big book and others to refrain from using it. On each occasion the use of the book involves the recording of the words ‘peanut butter’. In the first example, the teacher gives the big book to Wayne, however he must infer what he is to do with it. Wayne has approached the teacher and initiated interaction by naming the word that he has just written, ‘eat’. The teacher “says” his sentence “so far” out loud. She gives emphasis to the word that he has just written, and then directs what he is to do next. In this way she connects what Wayne has written so far with what he is to write next.

®	Wayne:	[eat Mi*ss Anderson (0.4)
	Mckiela:	[Do::m*
		(0.2)
	Jamie:	^the one that I had ( )^
		(1.0)
®	Wayne:	I have
	Mckiela:	Dominic
®	Teacher:	((looks straight ahead)) I like to (0.2) EAT (0.4) now (0.2) write (.) peanut butter (( puts big book near Wayne’s book))
		(0.6)

This action by the teacher positively sanctions copying from the big book. Further, unlike many of the examples considered in this chapter, the teacher “tells” here. That is she does not ask a question which might require that Wayne tell her or work out himself what he is to write next. She names the words, however he must find them in the book and, of course, he must interpret her action in passing the book over, as indicating that the words are in the book, and can be copied from it. No direction other than to write it is given,

The next example is used to explicate some of the ways that a student makes evident through talk her intended use of the big book, and how the teacher directs her activity away from the big book and to writing it herself. Cathlyn has just finished writing ‘peanut’, by copying it from the teacher’s shared writing. Cathlyn’s utterance, ‘peanut butter’, contains the word she has just written and the word she has to write next. Following this she is silent for a few seconds.

®		((Cathlyn looking ahead, mouths 'peanut butter'))
	Dominic:	!ver::y
		(0.4)
	Ivan:	^the supermarket^
		(1.0)
	Dominic:	good.
		(0.4)
	Dina:	^is that it^
	Student:	^in^
		((Mckiela writes ‘e’ then looks at Dominic’s book))
®	Cathlyn:	I know [where I* can find ((gets up)) bu¯tter
	Melodie:	[( )*
®		((Mckiela begins writes ‘p’/ Cathlyn walking away))
		(0.4)

Cathlyn’s next utterance while announcing that she knows where to find ‘butter’ also indicates that she isn’t going to copy ‘butter’ from the shared writing. This is interesting, from an analyst’s perspective. Although not evident in this segment of talk, some talk had just occurred about ‘peanut butter’ at the table behind her, between Dina and the teacher:

Dina:	how do you write peanut butter?
Teacher:	where are you going to find peanut butter?,

It may be that Cathlyn has heard this talk. Certainly her utterance works as an announcement that displays her knowledge, although appearing not to be directed at anyone in particular. The announcement makes salient “finding” the word somewhere else, rather than copying it from the shared writing text as she has just done with ‘peanut’ and explains Cathlyn’s movement away from the table. Cathlyn’s use of “find” shows familiarity with the way that print is talked about in the room. Cathlyn does not say, for example, “I know where ‘butter’ is written.”. It also shows her orientation to the positively sanctioned activity of finding words as “doing independent writing.

Cathlyn returns to the table with the big book. Her utterance again indicates or explains why she has the big book and what she is going to use it for, so provides an account of her actions for others although no-one responds to her directly or appears to notice.

®	Cathlyn:	I’m getting (0.2) [butter off here* ((walking with big book))
	Melodie:	[have you ( ) it* today
	Wayne:	yea::h (0.4)
	Melodie:	it’s all right
		(0.4)
		((Mckiela begins to write ‘e’))
®	Cathlyn:	I’ve got butter on here
		((Mckiela looks at Cathlyn))

Cathlyn’s next utterance announces that she has “got” the word ‘butter’. This again works to draw the attention of others through a display of her knowledge. Cathlyn’s use of “off here” and “on here” is interesting. Together with talk about “getting” the word, her talk avoids use of “copying”; the word is there and can be “got” by her. Cathlyn’s actions here display her tacit understandings about the use of the book; words may be “found” in this book and used to write words that you don’t know during independent writing. In this sense then, being an independent writer in this classroom involves knowing about finding words and showing that you know where words can be found. Just as Cathlyn doesn’t use the word “copy” in relation to using print that is around the room, neither does the teacher.

Shortly after, the teacher comes to sit beside Cathlyn. In her talk she works to get Cathlyn to record the word by herself, without recourse to the book. The teacher’s directive here is “hearable” as indicating to Cathlyn that copying ‘butter’ is not what she should be doing.

®	Teacher	((sits down beside Cathlyn)) I love peanut ( 0.4) ((takes book)) [now (0.2) sound butter out though* ((turning))
	Dion:	[^Miss Anderson I* found mine^
		((Mckiela looks at the teacher who is looking at Dion))
	Melodie:	( )
®	Cathlyn:	‘b’ ((looks at the teacher who is looking at Dion))
	Wayne:	what=
→	Cathlyn:	= ‘u’ ((looking at the teacher))

The teacher manages the redirection of Cathlyn’s activity in a number of ways that indicate to her that she can write it herself without copying and that she should do so. She establishes what Cathlyn is going to do next by reading her writing aloud, emphasising the last word that she has written and naming ‘butter’. Taking away the big book, together with her use of “though”, indicates her assessment that Cathlyn was going to “get” the word from the book and that she should not do that. She establishes this without asking Cathlyn what she was going to do. The use of ‘now’ together with a short pause prefaces the directive to sound out ‘butter’. This then provides Cathlyn with the alternate activity that she should do.

The teacher takes away the book without explanation so negatively sanctions its use by Cathlyn. Her directive requires that Cathlyn work out the word herself. Cathlyn does not query teacher’s actions here but rather begins to spell the word ‘butter’ out aloud. Although she is spelling rather than “sounding out” letters, Cathlyn’s action indicates that she is working out the word herself. So in a number of ways Cathlyn displays her orientation to the teacher. She finds words, and talks about finding them.

When the teacher requires other activity, she complies with this. She spells out aloud and displays her knowledge of the spelling of the word to the teacher. Overall, she evidently orients to “doing independent writing” as the teacher requires it.

The final example involves interaction about the same word and big book. Dominic attempts to get the big book from the teacher for Mckiela to copy the word ‘butter’ but here again, the teacher withholds access to the book. The teacher is sitting to the right of Dominic with her arms on the big book. Mckiela is sitting on the other side of Dominic.

®		((teacher nods “yes”/ Cathlyn begins to write/ Dominic taps the teacher on her arm with his pencil))
	Wayne:	[[‘s’ *
®	Dominic:	[[what’s b*utter ((looks at Mckiela and back)) (1.0) /b/ /u/
		((teacher looking at Dominic then turning away))
	Melodie:	((Melodie shakes head)) e::ye
®	Dominic:	two ‘t’s ‘e’ ((taps big book with pencil))
		(0.2)

Dominic initially summons the teacher with the tap of his pencil and then asks about the spelling of ‘butter’. His glance at Mckiela indicates that the word is for her. However in the absence of a reply from the teacher, Dominic begins to spell the word himself. This indicates to the teacher that he can spell the word however she has turned away. When the teacher turns away, Dominic concludes the spelling and taps the big book. The tapping also indexes his question to the book (where the word can be found) and displays what it is that Dominic wants. In this way Dominic indicates that the teacher has not understood and tries to draw her attention back to him. The teacher does not look at Dominic again during this interaction however her actions, to look at him and then to turn away without reply in order not to give him the book, evidences very strongly conversational rights that the teacher has in the classroom. That is, she may evidently and without explanation not respond to talk directed at her by an individual.

5.4.3 Procedural grounds for activity

The teacher’s shared writing text was at the front of the classroom. She had written it during the whole-class teacher-led time that preceded independent writing. She had written: “Yesterday we made peanut butter and jam sandwiches. American people eat them all the time.". The teacher involved the students in its production by questioning them about the event and asking for their help in recording words. The shared writing text was the main source used by Cathlyn, Dominic and Jamie, for recording unknown words. The other two children at the table, Wayne and Mckiela made no direct use of the shared writing text at all.

The following analysis is used to establish that copying from the shared writing text “counts” as doing independent writing. Although not acknowledged by the teacher, students have obvious grounds for copying from this text since it does not receive negative sanctions from her (Heap, 2000). Here for example, Dominic’s use of the text occurs in the presence of the teacher who is at the table. Another student is also copying, but from Dominic. Mckiela’s covert actions suggest that her activity is not positively sanctioned in the classroom. This section of the transcript involves no talk between the two.

®	1 2		((Mckiela dots the ‘i’/ Dominic turns right around to look at the teacher’s writing// Mckiela looks at Dominic’s page))
	3 4	Wayne:	=how do you write (0.2) the (0.4) peanut butter (0.2) Miss Anderson
®	5		((Dominic writing/ Mckiela turns back to her page))
	6	Teacher:	so can you write (0.2) I::?
	7		(0.8)
	8	Wayne:	I::
®	9 10		((Mckiela writes ‘k’/Dominic looks to the shared writing book/Mckiela turns to Dominic/Wayne writes ‘I’))
	11	Ivan:	big double ewe can go to tha supermarket
	12	Peter:	^he::y^
	13		(2.0)
®	14		((Dominic writes/ Mckiela looks back and finishes ‘k’))

Dominic is copying from the shared writing text (1 and 9). As he does this Mckiela copies from his writing (2 and 10). The video recording showed that he appeared not to notice Mckiela doing this, and that Mckiela managed her copying by looking at Dominic’s book when he was looking at the shared writing.

Some minutes later the teacher observes Mckiela copying. The teacher initiates interaction with Mckiela while Dominic is writing. Her question works to accomplish several things. It indicates to Mckiela that the teacher has watched her and it gives a formulation of her activities as illegitimately copying. However, her laughter and the question itself work to let Mckiela “off the hook”. It indicates that if it were true it is the wrong thing for her to be doing.

Teacher:	((looking at Mckiela)) you’re not just copying Dominic’s are you?, ((laughing)) (1.0) Dominic can help you (2.0) D-Dominic look at me ((mouth forms /e/ position)) (1.0) ¯very
Dominic:	(1.2) ‘e’ ((looking at teacher))
	((teacher nods/Dominic begins to write/Wayne sits))

The absence of a reply from Mckiela, after the teacher waits, avoids confirming what the teacher is suggesting. So the teacher’s comment works as an indirect negative sanction and can be taken as an indication that Mckiela’s copying is a breach of the local order of independent writing time. The words “just copying”, as a formulation of activity, indicates that copying does not count as independent writing. In this way the teacher places a “constraint on contribution” (Drew & Heritage, 1992, p. 23), at the same time gives Mckiela a “ticket” (Sacks, 1989) that gives her certain rights to Dominic’s attention, time and talk, and obligates Dominic to help.

When the teacher spoke to Mckiela about copying she picked her out as someone who was not doing “being ordinary” (Garkinkel, 1997). In other words, she was not doing what individual students do in independent writing. Although the teacher negatively sanctioned Mckiela’s actions, she continues to copy from Dominic during independent writing however uses her interaction with him in a way that allows her to copy in an orderly way.

5.4.4 Telling and copying

The analysis of excerpts from a long sequence of activity involving the recording of ‘sandwich’ will be used to draw out the ways in which Mckiela enables Dominic to tell her what to write while she still, covertly, copies from him. Initially, she copies the first letter of the word from Dominic and then summons his help (98).

®	98	Mckiela:	Dom
	99	Cathlyn:	why
	100		(0.2)
	101	Jamie:	cos it might rain
®	102	Mckiela:	Dom I wancha ta
	103	Cathlyn:	too cold
®	104	Mckiela:	=help m[e*
	105	Cathlyn:	[too* wet (0.2) too warm
	106		(1.6)
	107		((Wayne looks in Cathlyn’s direction))
®	108	Mckiela:	Dom you’re not doing much help
	109		(1.5)

Mckiela’s utterances here show her awareness that Dominic is supposed to be helping her. When he does not respond to her summons, she states what she wants in full (102-104) and then she challenges him (108) by formulating the lack of help she is receiving from him. The word “help” is used like a ticket (Sacks, 1985). Since the teacher has indicated that Dominic can help Mckiela, her reference to “help” serves to “bring” his help about by reminding him.

Dominic’s eventual response indicates his understanding that he should help her. He looks at her book and sees that she has written ‘s’. His utterance indicates that he knows the word she is writing. So like the teacher, he draws on his understanding of the common task, to supply the word, although his comment suggests that Mckiela herself might not know what she is writing. In order to tell her the next letter she needs he looks at his own book. This suggests that Dominic cannot spell the word himself without recourse to seeing it written.

	110 111	Dominic:	((looks at Mckiela’s book)) but (.) you need sandwich ((looks at his book)) (3.0) sandwich (2.0) ay::
	112		(0.4)
®	113	Mckiela:	((looking at Dominic’s book)) I already do[ne* that
®	114 115	Dominic:	[whe*re’s your book?,
	116		(2.0)

Mckiela disagrees with Dominic but his response is immediate, overlapping her talk. His response suggests that he is checking for himself. This further illustrates that Dominic has copied “sandwich” from the shared writing text himself. It was evident on the video recording and is represented in long sections of the transcript where he repeatedly turned to the shared writing and back to his own writing to record individual letters.

In the interaction that follows involving the recording of “sandwich”, Mckiela keeps a step ahead of Dominic by looking in his direction and at his book, then waiting until he names the letter before writing it. The interaction involves, what will be termed analytically, “a chain of copying” whereby the word that Dominic has copied himself from the teacher’s shared writing is in turn copied by Mckiela. This is evident in lines 127, 133 and 135, for example.

®	126	Dominic:	put sandwich (0.9) ‘s’ ‘a’ ((taps his page))
®	127		((Mckiela writes ‘a’ then looks in Dominic’s direction))
	128		(0.4)
	129	Teacher:	a::h
	130		((Dominic looking at his book))
	131	Cathlyn:	‘a’!
	132		(0.6)
®	133	Dominic:	‘n’ ((looking at Mckiela))
	134		(0.5)
®	135	Mckiela:	‘n’ (0.7) ((Mckiela writes ‘n’ then looks at Dominic’s book))
	136 137	Dominic:	‘s’ ((looks at book)) (3.0) ‘d’ (1.2) ‘d’ (0.4) ‘d’ ‘d’ ‘d’ ‘d’ ‘d’ ((looks at book))
	138		((Mckiela writes ‘d’ then looks at Dominic’s book))
®	139	Dominic:	(0.6) ‘w’ (0.4) ‘w’ (0.2) ‘w’
	140	Ivan:	can we please dra:::w
	141	Student:	^yeah righto^
®	142		((Mckiela writes ‘w’ then looks in Dominic’s direction))

Because Dominic needs to look at the print himself he does not notice that Mckiela is looking at his writing. Dominic names ‘s’ then but looks at his page for some time (136) changing the letter to a ‘d’ and repeating this several times over. The repetition is prompted by absence of action by Mckiela. He repeats this process with ‘w’, waiting a little and then repeating the word when Mckiela hasn’t written it.

Mckiela takes account of how her actions might look to others, in particular to the teacher and to Dominic. This is most easily evidenced in the way that she attends to Dominic as he tells her how to record words. She attends to him, thus indicates to him her orientation to what he will tell her, even though she has looked at his book and knows the appearance of the letter that she will write next. That she is careful to do this is shown through the way in which her movements are coordinated with his so that he is kept unaware that she is looking at his book. She sees her actions as he might; she looks, listens and records letters in concert with his telling. Her attention to him prompts his telling. In his turn, it is evident that Dominic’s actions take account of inaction on Mckiela’s part and displays this to her through his own actions to prompt writing by repeating letters.

Although difficult to note and record in transcript, the video recording shows that after Mckiela records each letter she turns to Dominic and she looks at his face and then just shifts her glance a little to his book as he turns his face to look at the next letter. In this way she indicates that she is ready to record the next letter. She waits each time for Dominic to say the letter, she doesn’t just look at it and record it independently as she did in her earlier copying. This process is repeated again with ‘i’, ‘c’ ‘h’. Dominic names the letters (47, 52 and 56). Mckiela looks at them on his book (49, 57 and 59).

	143		(0.5)
	144	Student:	^okay^
®	145	Dominic:	((looks at book)) ‘i’ (1.2) ‘i’((looking at Mckiela))
	146		(0.4)
®	147		((Mckiela writes ‘i’, then looks at Dominic’s book))
	148	Student:	^( )^
	149	Student:	( )
®	150	Dominic:	‘c’ ((looking at Mckiela))
®	151		((Mckiela writes ‘c’))
	152	Student:	liste::n
	153		(2.0)
®	154	Dominic:	haitch
®	155 156 157		((Mckiela looks at Dominic’s book/ Dominic points at his writing/ Mckiela stands, looks, writes ‘h’ then looks at Dominic’s book))

When Mckiela turns to look at Dominic’s book to see ‘h’, he notices her look and points to the word for her. In this way he indicates both what the letter looks like and his interpretation of that look; Mckiela doesn’t know how to write the letter.

Finally Dominic names ‘e’ (159) and Mckiela writes it. Dominic says ‘s’ (162), Mckiela looks at his book and writes it (163). Dominic leaves the table (163).

	158	Dion:	^where is the key Miss Anderson^
®	159	Dominic:	((looking at his book)) ‘e’
	160		((Mckiela writes ‘e’))
	161	Res:	^just save it then^
®	162	Dominic:	‘s’
®	163 164 165		((Mckiela stands, looks and writes ‘s’/ Dominic leaves the table holding his book, walking in the direction of the teacher/Melodie begins drawing her picture))

Dominic’s swift exit concluded his interactions with Mckiela. The analysis of Dominic’s telling with ‘sandwich’ shows it to be much more than just a series of naming letters for Mckiela to record. Dominic’s telling was finely tuned to Mckiela’s recording of individual letters just as her copying of letters from his page was finely tuned to his physical movements to and from her own book. Dominic watched Mckiela’s recording and effected repair when he assessed that he needed to.

The interaction that occurred between Mckiela and Dominic may be considered further from the perspective of institutional activity and talk. Both Mckiela and Dominic acted on the words of the teacher. Dominic complied with the teacher’s directive that he should help Mckiela and Mckiela required that Dominic help her throughout independent writing because the teacher indicated to her that he should. Mckiela however continued to copy and in that sense breached the order of the classroom related to copying from the work of others. However in another sense she maintained the order of the classroom by doing “independent writer” as the teacher had determined it.

Thus copying, so as to avoid negative sanction, is revealed to involve a fine-grained awareness of the other, and an understanding of how one’s actions will look like to the other person (Schutz, 1967). This is very evident in many aspects of the classroom talk on this day. Other children glance and watch in order to record words. The following excerpt from the transcripts captures this, although not of course in the elegant fashion that seeing and copying the work of others entailed in order to avoid negative sanctions.

((Wayne begins to draw a line across the page/ Cathlyn writes ‘e’/ Jamie watches Cathlyn/ Dominic looks at shared writing book/ Cathlyn looks to shared writing then glances at Jamie’s writing))

At the table students sit close to each other and under the gaze of the teacher, frequently needing to write words that they don’t know and knowing that others do know how to write those same words. This makes salient the absence of talk between students about the words that they need to write and suggests that asking each other for information is not an activity that counts as independent writing.

5.4.5 Recourse to what everybody knows

One student negatively sanctions copying during independent writing. When Wayne looks at Melodie’s book, she interprets Wayne’s “looking” as copying and stops him. Melodie’s first utterance shows her interpretive work. Her utterance involves a formulation of his action as copying, the physical prevention of it and an explanation that justifies this action.

®		((Jamie writes/ Mckiela begins to turn pages of her book/ Wayne looks over at Melodie’s book))
	Jamie:	yeah
®	Melodie:	you don’t [copy* off other pe::ople ((arms across her book))
	Dominic:	[‘a’* (0.8)
	Teacher:	^hey Jaz (0.4)^
®	Wayne:	ohw ((tapping forehead with pencil))

Melodie stops copying by resorting to “what everybody knows”, that you shouldn’t copy off other people. Wayne’s actions prompt Melodie’s articulation of this to stop what she interprets as copying. Wayne’s actions in response show his understanding also, and work to give an account to Melodie for his actions. He indicates some kind of error, as if he has made a mistake by looking rather than confirming that he was copying. His tapping indicates to Melodie that he is trying to work out what to do. In this interaction it is evident that it is not only the teacher who requires adherence to what you are supposed to do.

5.4.6 Explicating the order

The examples considered above illustrate that finding a word from around the room was positively sanctioned at times by the teacher, and was required by her talk with some individual students. On other occasions that activity was not sanctioned. Interactions with the teacher, involving use of print by students, work to accomplish different uses by individuals. The teacher’s actions indicate that “doing it by yourself’ is the preferred option for some students. She provides her own assessments sometimes as to whether or not a student could write it rather than copy, as she did with Cathlyn. However at other times her actions involve no explanation for use of print, for example when she hands Wayne the big book. The teacher can be seen in her interactions to be requiring some students to do independent writing with the use of print resources in the room, and requiring others to do it by not using those same resources. The teacher’s actions involve a “taken-for-granted” understanding that students should write words by themselves if they can.

Finding words is a gloss (Garkinkel, 1967) for locating, reading and copying words. Students may use print to copy words judged too difficult for them, but should not copy words that are easy and could be written without copying. Finding and using these words is never referred to as copying. Copying words from the work of another student is not “finding” however. The analysis shows that the teacher works, through her interactions with individuals, to ensure that they use print in particular ways. Students, in their turn, show their awareness of the order of independent writing however they also routinely complete activities that are not sanctioned as legitimate by the teacher but do so in orderly ways to avoid negative sanctions by the teacher.

In this way they maintain the order of the classroom: they appear to do what counts as independent writing and complete the writing task.

Asking the teacher how to write or spell a word does not result in being given this information. Hence the teacher’s avoidance of answering questions that require the spelling of a word must be taken as an indication that being told how to write words does not count as independent writing. Some students have learnt this lesson and do not ask the teacher these questions, others did ask the teacher but were directed by her to other sources of information.

5.5 Conclusions

The analysis in Chapter Five has examined some of the ways that teacher and students accomplish independent writing. Although some students orient to the teacher for assistance, the teacher in turn orients them to other sources of information. She accomplishes this using, for example, questions in response to questions to withhold information requested and to make relevant other courses of action. So, “finding words” and “sounding out” were positively sanctioned activities in the classroom. These enabled students to write words without recourse to assistance from the teacher. However, in order for this to occur the teacher needed to direct their activity. Thus the analysis establishes that even during independent activity the teacher works to control what individual students are doing, in order to “do” independent writing.

The analysis of what counts as independent writing in this chapter reveals aspects of its local order. This is made evident particularly through the use of print in the room by individual students to complete their writing. The teacher’s negative sanctions of use of print “found” in the room by some students, is accompanied by directives or actions that require that they write it themselves. In this way she requires other activity by them in order to accomplish independent writing. The teacher’s interaction with these students involves her estimation that they should write it by themselves because they can. The teacher’s activity during independent writing accomplishes a local order that results in differences in what counts as independent writing. For example, use of the big book for recording ‘peanut butter’ was legitimate for Wayne but not for Cathlyn. Thus, students must understand the teacher's actions as indicating what counts for them, rather than to what counts for everybody as doing independent writing.

As well, the analysis explicated aspects of the interaction that can be considered to constitute independent writing as different from teacher-led classroom settings. Talk about “finding” words was found to be a specialized use of language, related to print practices in the classroom, and integral to independent activity. The interaction involved some modification of talk used in teacher-led instruction of the cohort. For example, she uses questions to direct activity, and to orient students away from her, rather than requiring that they display knowledge to her through talk. She does not evaluate many students’ responses given to these questions. In contrast to student’s limited turn-taking rights in whole class instruction, during independent writing students may self-start interactions with the teacher. However, the teacher’s responses frequently involve the resumption of turn-taking rights (McHoul, 1978) identified with whole-class instruction. Her reading of student texts is used to take a turn, and then direct some next action independent of student activity, for example.

The analysis in this chapter suggests further questions about aspects of the social organisation of independent writing. How do interactions between students accomplish independent writing and how might this constitute the institutional setting? Since the teacher’s responses to students’ requests for assistance work to orient them away from her, what happens if someone keeps asking for assistance? These questions will be explored in the next chapter, through a focus on interactions involving one student and those who helped him, in order to establish further aspects of the social organisation of independent writing.