Initiation, Response, Follow-up and Beyond: Analyzing Dialogue Around Difficulty in a Tutorial Setting
Main Article Content
Abstract
With the advent of Common Core-based assessments, and resulting concerns about academic achievement, more and more students may require the level of instructional intensity tutoring affords. The extent of knowledge regarding the discourse that occurs within the tutoring context is, however, limited. As a result, it is difficult to envision and implement a protocol that incorporates responsive tutor/tutee interaction. This article describes an analysis of discourse patterns that occur as a tutor responded to student difficulty. The study is framed using Bakhtin’s concept of dialogue—the ways in which interactions are influenced by the joint speaker/listener identity that is characteristic of interlocutors—and the way this played out in a dialogic instructional context. Excerpts from eight previous tutoring studies served as a foundation for the present research. The primary data source for the analysis was start-to-finish audio-recordings of 40 hours of instruction with two fourth grade readers. After preliminary open coding, overarching categories such as questioning, providing information, and demonstrating strategy use—and more detailed codes within these categories—were applied to the transcripts. Major findings demonstrated that: (a) the tutor’s moves were varied and balanced and differed somewhat from child to child, (b) some interactional sequences appeared more effective than others depending on the topic and child, and (c) interactions in this setting differed in important ways from those found in the research literature. I argue here that the dialogic characteristics of tutor/tutee interactions served the children involved and should serve as the basis for additional tutoring protocols.
Article Details
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- 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.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- 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:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- 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.
References
Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge, UK: Dialogos.
Almazrouhi, K.M. (2007). Learning together through retrospective miscue analysis. Reading Improvement, 44 (3), 153-168.
Applegate, M.D., Quinn, K.B., & Applegate, A.J. (2008). The critical reading inventory (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1973). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Trans. R.W. Rotsel. Ann Arbor, MI: Ardis.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Trans. V.W. McGee. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Baumann, J.F., Jones, L.A., & Seifert-Kessel, N. (1993). Monitoring reading comprehension by thinking aloud (Instructional Resource # 1). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.
Boyd, M.P. (2015). Relations between teacher questioning and student talk in one elementary ELL classroom. Journal of Literacy Research, 47 (3), 370-404.
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.
Buly, M.R., & Valencia, S.W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (3), 219-239.
Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London, UK: Sage.
Chazan, D., & Ball, D. (1999). Beyond being told not to tell. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19 (2), 2-10.
Clay, M.M. (1987). Learning to be learning disabled. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 22 (2), 155-173.
Cohen, P.A., Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C-L.C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19 (2), 237-248.
Constas, M.A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29 (2), 353-366.
Cromley, J.G. (2005). What do reading tutors do? A naturalistic study of more and less experienced tutors in reading. Discourse Processes, 40 (2), 83-113.
Dawes, E.T. (2007). Constructing reading: Building conceptions of literacy in a volunteer read-aloud program. Language Arts, 85 (1), 10-19.
Edwards, T. (1992). Teacher talk and pupil confidence. In K. Norman, (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project (pp. 235-241). London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton.
English, A.R. (2016). Dialogic teaching and moral learning: Self-critique, narrativity, community, and “blind spots.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 50 (2), 160-176.
Fitts, S., & Gross, L. (2012). Teacher candidates learning from English learners: Constructing concepts of language and culture in Tuesday’s Tutors after-school program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39 (4), 75-95.
Gee, J.P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A tool kit. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gibbs, G.R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Hedin, L.R., & Gaffney, J.S. (2013). Tutoring sixth graders who struggle with reading: Illustrations of Woods’s contingent intervention. Reading Psychology, 34 (3), 207-256.
Herppich, S., Wittwer, J., Nuckles, M., & Renkl, A. (2016). Expertise amiss: Interactivity fosters learning but expert tutors are less interactive than novice tutors. Instructional Science, 44, 205-219.
Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43 (4), 325-356.
Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: A review. Review of Educational Research, 57 (1), 1-50.
Jaeger, E.L. (2015). Learning to construct meaning from text: A case study of the relationship between a tutor and an English learner in a Response to Intervention setting. Literacy Research and Instruction, 54 (4), 285-315.
Jaeger, E.L. (2017). Learning through responsive and collaborative mediation in a tutorial context. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 40 (3), 210-224.
Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Juel, C. (1996). What makes tutoring effective? Reading Research Quarterly, 31 (3), 268-289.
Kohn, A. (1993). Choices for children: Why and how to let students decide. Phi Delta Kappan, 75 (1), 8-16 & 18-20.
Leal, D., Johanson, G., Toth, A., & Huang, C-C. (2004). Increasing at-risk students’ literacy skills: Fostering success for children and their preservice reading endorsement tutors. Reading Improvement, 41 (2), 75-96.
Lee, Y-A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 180-206.
Lefstein, A. (2010). More helpful as problem than solution: Some implications of situating dialogue in classrooms. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 170-191). London, UK: Routledge.
Lewis, C. (1993). “Give people a chance”: Acknowledging social differences in reading. Language Arts, 70 (6), 454-461.
Massey, D.D. (2007). “The Disney Channel said so” and other barriers to comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 60 (7), 656-666.
Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3 (1), 25-45.
Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Matusov, E. (2011). Authorial teaching and learning. In E.J. White & M.A. Peters (Eds.), Bakhtinian pedagogy: Opportunities and challenges for research, policy, and practice in education (pp. 21-46). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mercer, N. (1995). Guided construction of knowledge. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 137-168.
Mercer, N. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students from the 1970s to the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40 (4), 430-445.
MindTools (2017). SMART goals: How to make your goals achievable. Accessed from https://www.mindtools.com/papers/article/smart-goals.htm
Mokhtari, K., Hutchison, A.C., & Edwards, P.A. (2010). Organizing instruction for struggling readers in tutorial settings. The Reading Teacher, 64 (4), 287-290.
Newcomer, L.J. (2010). An examination of instructional interactions between volunteer-tutors and students who show differential gains in reading comprehension (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3402462)
Nystrand, M., Wu, L.L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D.A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35 (2), 135-198.
Pearson, P.D., & Gallagher, G. (1983). The gradual release of responsibility model of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 112-123.
Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., Deford, D.E., Bryk, A.S., & Selzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29 (1), 8-39.
Razfar, A. (2005). Language ideologies in practice: Repair and classroom discourse. Linguistics in Education, 16, 404-424.
Rodgers, E.M. (2004/2005). Interactions that scaffold reading performance. Journal of Literacy Research, 36 (4), 501-532.
Sableski, M-K. (2009). Scaffolding as an impetus for change when working with struggling readers. Journal of Reading Education, 34 (3), 30-37.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
Samson, J.F., Hines, S.J., & Li, K. (2015). Effective use of paraprofessionals as early intervention reading tutors in grades K-3. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnerships in Learning, 23 (2), 164-177.
Sanacore, J. (1999). Encouraging children to make choices about their literacy learning. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35 (1), 38-42.
Shenderovich, Y., Thurston, A., & Miller, S. (2016). Cross-age tutoring in kindergarten and elementary school settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 76, 190-210.
Sinclair, J.M., & Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Timmons, B.J., & Morgan, D.N. (2010). Preservice tutors and first-grade students: Instruction interactions and faculty feedback. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50 (1), 15-30.
Triplett, C.F. (2004). Looking for a struggle: Exploring the emotions of a middle school reader. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48 (3), 214-222.
Turner, J., & Paris, S. (1995). How literacy tasks influence children’s motivation for literacy. The Reading Teacher, 48 (8), 662-673.
Wegerif, R. (2008). Reason and dialogue in education. In B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, & R. van der Veer (Eds.), The transformation of learning: Advances in Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (pp. 273-286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wegerif, R. (2011). Towards a dialogic theory of how children learn to think. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 179-190.
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, 1-37.
Wells, G. (1996). Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3 (2), 74-101.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wittwer, J. Nuckles, M., Landmann, N., & Renkl, A. (2010). Can tutors be supported in giving effective explanations? Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (1), 74-89.
Wood, D. (1992). Teaching talk. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project (pp. 203-214). London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton for the National Curriculum Council.