Emergence and Development of a Dialogic Whole-class Discussion Genre

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Apr 4, 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2019.256
Keywords:
Discussion IRE/F Genre Narrative History Social Studies

Main Article Content

Michael B Sherry
University of South Florida
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6035-3452

Abstract

Prior research across disciplines has established the value of dialogic, whole-class discussions. Previous studies have often defined discussions in opposition to the notorious triadic pattern called recitation, or IRE/F, focusing on variations to the teacher’s initiating question or evaluative follow-up on students’ responses. Recent scholarship has also identified variations on recitations and dialogic discussions that suggest these categories might be flexible, containing types of interaction associated with particular contexts. However, research remains to be done on how such types, or genres, of dialogic, whole-class discussion emerge and develop over time. In this article, I take up this line of inquiry, analyzing the classroom discourse of five lesson excerpts generated by a prospective teacher and his students in a US secondary History classroom between October and March. I illustrate how, over time, teacher and students repeatedly renegotiated the nature of a recitation-style textbook review activity using similar patterns of language that suggested an emergent discourse genre. These five interactions did not all lead to dialogic, whole-class discussions; I explain their relative success or failure in terms of how they constructed participants’ relationships to historical and classroom events. I argue that even failed attempts at generating dialogic discourse may be part of a developing genre.

Article Details

How to Cite
Sherry, M. B. (2019). Emergence and Development of a Dialogic Whole-class Discussion Genre. Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2019.256
Issue
Vol. 7 (2019)
Section
Articles

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link. 

Author Biography

Michael B Sherry, University of South Florida

Michael B. Sherry is Assistant Professor of English Education at the University of South Florida. His research addresses teacher response to students in whole-class discussions and in writing, particularly those types of response that promote participation from marginalized students. His writing has appeared in journals like Research in the Teaching of English, American Educational Research Journal, English Education, and Linguistics and Education.

References

Alexander, R. J. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Dialogos.

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730.

Aukerman, M. S. (2007). When reading it wrong is getting it right: Shared evaluation pedagogy among struggling fifth graders. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(1), 56–103.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. (M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. (C. Emerson, Trans.). Minneapolis, MI: University of Minnesota Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1986a). Speech genres and other late essays. (M. Holquist & C. Emerson, Trans.) (Vol. 1st). Austin,TX: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1986b). Toward a philosophy of the act. In G. S. Morson & C. Emerson (Trans.), 1984-1985 Yearbook of the Soviet Academy of Sciences (pp. 80–160). Moscow: Nauka.

Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Psychology Press.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Bazerman, C. (1997). The Life of Genre, the Life in the Classroom. In W. Bishop & H. Ostrom (Eds.), Genre and writing: Issues, arguments, alternatives (pp. 19–26). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Bazerman, C., Bonini, A., & Figueiredo, D. (Eds.). (2009). Genre in a changing world. Lafayette, IA: Parlor Press, LLC.

Bellack, A. A., Kliebard, H. M., Hyman, R. T., & Smith, F. L. (1966). The language of the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bernstein, M. A. (1994). Foregone conclusions: Against apocalyptic history. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Blosser, P. E. (2000). How to ask the right questions. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2015). Dialogic teaching and dialogic stance: Moving beyond interactional form. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(3), 272–296.

Boyd, M. P., & Rubin, D. (2006). How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: A function of display questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2), 141–169.

Cambridge Primary Review Trust. (2017). Dialogic teaching (Evaluation report and executive summary) (p. 77). London, UK: Education Endowment Foundation.

Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In Handbook of research on teaching (Vol. 3rd, pp. xi, 1037). New York London: Macmillan ; Collier Macmillan.

Cazden, C. B., & Leggett, E. (1981). Culturally responsive education: Recommendations for achieving LAU remedies II. In Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. viii, 248 p.). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Chisholm, J. S., & Loretto, A. J. (2016). Tensioning interpretive authority during dialogic discussions of literature. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 16, 1–32.

Collins, J. (1982). Discourse style, classroom interaction, and differential treatment. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 429–437.

Devitt, A. J. (1993). Generalizations about genre: New conceptions of an old concept. College Composition and Communication, 44(4), 573–586.

Dillon, J. T. (1994). Using discussion in classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Ernst-Slavit, G., & Pratt, K. L. (2017). Teacher questions: Learning the discourse of science in a linguistically diverse elementary classroom. Linguistics and Education, 40, 1–10.

Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (Eds.). (1994). Genre and the new rhetoric. London ; New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Gallimore, R., Dalton, S., & Tharp, R. G. (1986). Self-regulation and interactive teaching: The effects of teaching conditions on teachers’ cognitive activity. The Elementary School Journal, 86(5), 612.

Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience (Vol. Northeastern University Press). Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among Black children. Bloomington, IA: Indiana University Press.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. H. (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt.

Hess, D. (2004). Discussion in social studies: Is it worth the trouble? Social Education, 68(2), 151–156.

Hicks, D. (1995). Discourse, learning, and teaching. Review of Research in Education, 21, 49–9.

Hoetker, J., & Albrand, W. J. (1969). The persistence of recitation. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 145–167.

Hsu, P.-L., Roth, W.-M., & Mazumder, A. (2009). Natural pedagogical conversations in high school students’ internship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 481–505.

Husbands, C., & Pendry, A. (2000). Thinking and feeling: Pupils’ preconceptions about the past and historical understanding. In J. Arthur & R. Phillips (Eds.), Issues in history teaching (pp. 125–134). London: Routledge.

Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (1999). The discourse reader. London ; New York: Routledge.

Juzwik, M. M. (2006). Performing Curriculum: Building Ethos Through Narratives in Pedagogical Discourse. Teachers College Record, 108(4), 489–528.

Juzwik, M. M., Nystrand, M., Kelly, S., & Sherry, M. B. (2008). Oral narrative genres as dialogic resources for classroom literature study: A contextualized case study of conversational narrative discussion. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1111–1154.

Juzwik, M. M., & Sherry, M. B. (2005). Story makes sense of story: The power of oral narrative in Language Arts classrooms. New Horizons for Learning. Retrieved from http://archive.education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/strategies/topics/literacy/articles/story-makes-sense-of-story/.

Lawrence, A. M., & Crespo, S. (2016). IRE/F as a cross-curricular collaborative genre of implicit argumentation. Theory into Practice, 55(4), 1–12.

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 31(1), 25–45.

Matusov, E., Soslau, E., Marjanovic-Shane, A., & von Duyke, K. (2016). Dialogic education for and from authorial agency. Dialogic Pedagogy, (4), 162–196.

Mehan, H. (1979). “What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 18(4), 285–294.

Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.

Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(May), 151–167.

Morson, G. S. (1994). Narrative and freedom: The shadows of time. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Morson, G. S., & Emerson, C. (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a prosaics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of “triadic dialogue”? An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21, 376–406.

Newmann, F. (1990). Higher order thinking in teaching Social Studies: A rationale for the assessment of classroom thoughtfulness. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 41–56.

Nguyen, N., McFadden, A., Tangen, D., & Beutel, D. (2013). Video-stimulated recall interviews in qualitative research. Conference presentation presented at the AARE Annual Conference, Adelaide, Australia.

Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the unfolding structure of classroom discourse. Albany, NY: National Reseach Center on English Learning and Achievement.

O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335.

Parker, W. C. (2001). Classroom discussion: Models for leading seminars and deliberations. Social Education, 65(2), 111–115.

Parker, W. C. (2006). Public discourses in schools: Purposes, problems, possibilities. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 11–18.

Parker, W. C. (2010). Listening to strangers: Classroom discussion in democratic education. Teachers College Record, 112(11), 2815–2832.

Parker, W. C., & Hess, D. (2001). Teaching with and for discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(April), 273–289.

Prior, P. (1998). A microhistory of mediated authorship and disciplinary enculturation: Tracing authoritative and internally persuasive discourses. In Writing/Discplinarity: A Sociohistoric Account of Literate Activity in the Academy (pp. 215–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rees, C., & Roth, W.-M. (2017). Interchangeable positions in interaction sequences in science classrooms. Dialogic Pedagogy, 5, 18-36.

Reisman, A. (2015). Entering the historical problem space: Whole-class text-based discussion in History class. Teachers College Record, 117(2), 1–44.

Rice, J. M. (1893). The public school system of the United States. New York, NY: Century.

Rockwell, E. (2000). Teaching genres: A Bakhtinian approach. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 31(3), 260–282.

Roth, W.-M., & Gardner, R. (2012). “They’re gonna explain to us what makes a cube a cube?” Geometrical properties as contingent achievement of sequentially ordered child-centered mathematics lessons. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24, 323–346.

Sawyer, R. K. (2002). Improvisation and narrative. Narrative Inquiry, 12(2), 319–349.

Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Improvised dialogues: Emergence and creativity in conversation. Westport, CT: Ablex Pub.

Sawyer, R. K. (2005). Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schutz, A. (1971). Collected papers II: Studies in social theory (3rd ed.). The Hague, the Netherlands: Nijhoff.

Schweber, S. (2004). Making sense of the Holocaust. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Sherry, M. B. (2014). Indirect challenges and provocative paraphrases: Using cultural conflict-talk practices to promote students’ dialogic participation in whole-class discussions. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(2), 141–167.

Sherry, M. B. (2016). Bringing disciplinarity to dialogic discussions: Imaginative entry and disciplinary discourse in a ninth-grade History classroom. Curriculum Inquiry, 46(2), 168–195.

Sherry, M. B. (2018). Reframing recitation: The dialogic potential of student responses in IRE/F. Linguistics and Education, 45, 110–120.

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 375–383). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Tannen, D. (1979). What’s in a frame: Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Tannen, D. (2007). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse (Vol. 2nd). Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Thayer, V. T. (1928). The passing of the recitation. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.

van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understanding in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, (19), 209–228.

Voloshinov, V. N. (1971). Reported speech. In L. Matejka & K. Pomorska (Eds.), Readings in Russian Poetics: Structuralist and Formalist Views. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Walker, D. (2018). “Teen views of sex”: Inter-animation of dialogues in a radio feature story produced by Mexican immigrant youth. Dialogic Pedagogy, 6, 39–59.

Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5(1), 1–37.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50, 244–274.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wortham, S. (1994). Acting out participant examples in the classroom. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.

Zittoun, T. (2008). Learning through transitions: The role of institutions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(2), 165–181.

Zittoun, T. (2012). On the emergence of the subject. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46(3), 259–273.