Our practice-based research project, 'Spraakmakers', focuses on training young speakers of other languages in groupwork skills and exploratory talk, or E.T.. (Mercer; Wegerif; T’Sas, amongst others). It might seem counterintuitive to go ‘back to basics’ and focus on spoken interaction in this age of AI. However, we believe that future-proof education requires investment both in skills that cannot be automated, such as live oral proficiency, and also in innovative pedagogical methodologies that respond to shared challenges including migration, inequality, and linguistic diversity. Our work thus explores whether E.T. can help a growing and vulnerable young population – specifically, 12-18-year-old newcomers to Antwerp, Belgium – gain skills for advancement into mainstream education or the labour market, alongside other benefits of E.T. for metacognition, self-regulated and lifelong learning. (Mercer, Wegerif & Dawes, 1999).

Exploratory Talk emerged from the constructivist school and has been defined as discourse featuring: ‘peer collaboration/interaction, visible reasoning, knowledge construction, and public accountability’ which is achieved through ‘active and respectful listening, critically challenging or counter-challenging ideas, tentatively discussing hypotheses, giving and asking for arguments and striving for joint agreement’. (T’Sas and Daems, 2024, expanding on Mercer). In the context of language immersion for newcomers, E.T. would be present, for example, when diverse groups of pupils discuss a topic or problem through constructive exchange and mutual questioning, within a learner-centred environment designed to scaffold collaboration and equitable participation. This contrasts with less conscious forms of groupwork in which either everyone’s ideas are accepted in order to avoid disagreement (cumulative discourse) or discussions are driven by conflict (disputational discourse).

A recent overview of literature from 1976-2016 found 88 articles describing interventions based on E.T. (T’sas and Daems, 2024, 21) in around 30 countries worldwide (Ibid, p. 2). To our knowledge none of these dealt with ‘basic level’ speakers (A1-A2 as per the CEFR) of the language of instruction. This gap is relevant. Mercer suggests that by 9 -10 years old, most first-language speakers have naturally acquired the ‘language strategies they need to engage in exploratory talk (and so in educated discourse)’ (Mercer 1996, 374, cited in T’Sas and Daems, 2024). In this project, we work in schools for newcomers who have been in the country less than two years, and who generally test around A1- or A2-level. By definition they do not have these ‘language strategies’ – at least not yet in Dutch, the language of instruction – which Mercer describes as the starting point for E.T. Our motivation is therefore dual. First we aim to explore whether Exploratory Talk is accessible – or measurable – without relying on explicit language strategies. Further, we hope to explore other benefits of groupwork in newcomer secondary education.  

This context is challenging but rich. Groupwork is anyway not always straightforward in a mixed class of pupils with basic proficiency in the language of instruction. Yet this very combination of linguistic vulnerability and diversity makes E.T. especially relevant. T’Sas and Daems (2024, 27) highlighted that E.T. has specific potential to foster ‘understanding, shared respect, openness, and trust’ in a globalised and superdiverse education context. Working in secondary education for newcomers in Antwerp thus allows us to explore this innovative pedagogy in the context of a superdiverse European city in a country marked by high levels of educational inequality (Agirdag, 2020). This can serve as a case study to investigate ways to empower a growing, often marginalized population to engage meaningfully with peers and teachers, and to cultivate agency, and a sense of belonging in educational spaces that are otherwise linguistically and culturally challenging, with relevance for comparable formal or non-formal educational contexts across Europe.

Spraakmakers is a materials-development, intervention-based study lasting three years. The researchers are working in co-creation with two schools to develop a lesson packet in Exploratory Talk for newcomers. The lessons were tested in the classroom and refined based on feedback, and the new version will be re-tested. Classes in the schools – both intervention and control groups – are filmed discussing a ‘dilemma’ in groups of three, both pre- and post-intervention. These discussions are being transcribed and analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. Regarding materials development, our work rests on the supposition that existing approaches to E.T. need adapting to fit pupils’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Moreover, learning and using E.T. is far from intuitive, and we want learners to own the process without simplifying the content, regardless of language proficiency. We are working within compulsory education so the lessons are also explicitly linked to official curriculum goals. Nonetheless, our materials are intentionally different from typical classes, focusing on psycho-social and group skills over language or content. Regarding the physical learning environment, it is challenging to meaningfully impact this in our context (space is limited, and one partner even holds classes in shipping containers due to rapid increases in student numbers). We therefore focus on optimising pupil experience in the existing physical space, forming groups and designing tasks to intentionally scaffold participation and allow an atmosphere of constructive cooperation to emerge naturally. Further, we are embedding language scaffolding and intercultural awareness into the lessons, challenging assumptions in existing material. For example, one typical E.T. ground rule is ‘We respect everyone’s opinion’, implying that everyone has opinions! Our co-creation revealed the need to make this explicit. The idea that young people can have an ‘opinion’ is not universal, let alone express it. Therefore, to design effective lessons, it is often necessary to step backwards both conceptually and linguistically. We also rethought our approach to data analysis. One traditional measurement in E.T. is counting exploratory ‘keywords in context’– like ‘why’ or ‘therefore’ – as evidence of pupils co-constructing arguments. This approach assumes that all learners will use these constructions naturally, albeit more prominently post-intervention. In the context of newcomer education, we question this link between E.T. and linguistic markers, choosing to apply new methods of measurement alongside existing approaches in the hope of charting the authentic experience and potential for expression amongst pupils who do not yet enjoy a full palette of linguistic tools.

Regarding our expected findings, we believe that Exploratory Talk in newcomer education may not be visible through traditional linguistic markers. In particular, transitional structures (e.g. therefore), or suppositional modals (might, could) are typically beyond the repertoire of basic-level speakers so we will not necessarily find these. We will therefore include a range of measures alongside linguistic markers, taking an open, exploratory approach. We expect to see impact in intervention groups in some other variables from the literature, including some or all of: type and quality of arguments (Rojas-Drummond & Zapata, 2004); episode types (Herrlitz-Biro, 2013); and episode sub-categories (Van Boxtel et al, 2000). In addition, we define several new variables. First, the percentage – and total number – of on-task speech units: can groups focus better, and do they learn to sustain meaningful interaction longer? Second, three new ‘episode types’ to see if E.T. in newcomer education is expressed through language clarification, task clarification, or overt negotiation of interaction. Finally, given the multilingual context, we also consider the interplay between translanguaging and E.T. (Uddling, J. & Reath Warren, 2023). Finally, regarding turn-taking, alongside a potential improvement in democratic group dynamics, we will also look for increase in absolute participation amongst quieter group members. We hypothesise that even minimal increases in utterances for newcomer pupils lacking confidence or vocabulary, is a significant and an essential competence for E.T. Although the means of measuring exploratory talk may seem like a methodological niche, we believe that it represents a significant step towards charting and valorising the interaction, negotiation, collaboration, and cooperation that may go unnoticed in newcomer learning contexts more generally. As such, we also present Spraakmakers as a starting point to discuss how inclusive methodologies and classroom environments can transform learning in diverse environments including formal and non-formal newcomer education across Europe.

Agirdag, O. (2020). Onderwijs in een gekleurde samenleving. [Education in a coloured society]. Antwerpen: Epo. Herrlitz-Biro, L., Elbers, E. & de Haan, M. (2013). Key Words and the Analysis of Exploratory Talk. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(4), 1397-1415. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95-111. Rojas-Drummond, S. & Zapata, M. P. (2004). Exploratory Talk, Argumentation and Reasoning in Mexican Primary School Children. Language and Education, 18(6), 539-557. T’Sas, Jan, (2018). Learning outcomes of exploratory talk in collaborative activities, Doctorate UAntwerpen. T’Sas, J., & Daems, F. (2024). Exploratory talk in times of globalization and digitalization: A narrative review. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 24, 1-38. Uddling, J. & Reath Warren, A. (2023). A newcomer’s spontaneous translanguaging in lower-secondary physics education, International Multilingual Research Journal, 17:3, 270-288. Van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge, Learning and Instruction, 10(4), 311-330.