Authentic questions as prompts for productive and constructive sequences: A pragmatic approach to classroom dialogue and argumentation
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Goal. The problem of the authenticity of teacher questions has not received sufficient attention from educational researchers interested in the intersection between dialogue and argumentation. In this paper, we adopt a definition of authentic questions as dialogical units that prompt teacher-student interactions that are both productive (i.e., several students participating) and constructive (i.e., students produce arguments of high complexity). Our goal is to analyze whether and how specific types of dialogue prompts can encourage students’ engagement in more sophisticated argumentative interactions, as manifested through the construction of high-complexity arguments.
Method. We describe the implementation of our analytical approach to a large corpus of classroom interactions from five European countries. The corpus was segmented into dialogical sequences, which were then coded according to the argumentation dialogue goal expressed in the sequence. We also coded students’ arguments according to Toulmin’s elements and distinguished between low- and high-complexity arguments from a structural point of view.
Findings. Our findings show the predominance of the so-called Discovery questions as prompts that are both productive and constructive and Inquiry questions as prompts of argumentative constructive interactions. We discuss the importance of these findings for teacher professional development purposes.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
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. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1481140
Aristotle. (1991). Rhetoric. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle, vol. II. Princeton University Press.
Asterhan, C. S. C., Howe, C., Lefstein, A., Matusov, E., & Reznitskaya, A. (2020). Controversies and consensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 8, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2020.312
Banathy, B., & Jenlink, P. M. (Eds.). (2005). Dialogue as a Means of Collective Communication. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/b110207
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2016). “Good Moves” in knowledge-creating dialogue. Qwerty-Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 11(2), 12–26.
Bird, C. M. (2005). How I Stopped Dreading and Learned to Love Transcription. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(2), 226–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800404273413
Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. Routledge.
Boyd, M., & Markarian, W. (2011). Dialogic teaching: talk in service of a dialogic stance. Language and Education, 25(6), 515–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2011.597861
Boyd, M., & Markarian, W. (2015). Dialogic Teaching and Dialogic Stance: Moving beyond Interactional Form. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(3), 272–296. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/dialogic-teaching-stance-moving-beyond/docview/1657417694/se-2?accountid=28955
Buchanan Hill, J. (2016). Questioning techniques: A study of instructional practice. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(5), 660–671.
Bunt, H. (2000). Dialogue pragmatics and context specification. In H. Bunt & W. Black (Eds.), Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue. Studies in Computational Pragmatics (pp. 81–150). John Benjamins Publishing.
Clarà, M. (2021). Conceptually driven inquiry: addressing the tension between dialogicity and teleology in dialogic approaches to classroom talk. Educational Review, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1923462
Duriez, C. (2002). Baboon on the moon. The Arts Institute at Bournemouth.
Eadie, P., Stark, H., Snow, P., Gold, L., Watts, A., Shingles, B., Orsini, F., Connell, J., & Goldfeld, S. (2022). Teacher Talk in Early Years Classrooms following an Oral Language and Literacy Professional Learning Program. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 15(2), 302–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2021.1998938
Edwards-Groves, C., Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2014). Classroom talk: Understanding dialogue, pedagogy and practice. PETAA Newtown.
Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651595
Fishelov, D. (2008). Dialogues with/and Great Books: With Some Serious Reflections on Robinson Crusoe. New Literary History, 39(2), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.0.0022
Foong, C.-C., & Daniel, E. G. S. (2010). Assessing students’ arguments made in socio-scientific contexts: The considerations of structural complexity and the depth of content knowledge. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1120–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.294
Ganesh, S., & Holmes, P. (2011). Positioning Intercultural Dialogue—Theories, Pragmatics, and an Agenda. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4(2), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2011.557482
Hadjioannou, X. (2007). Bringing the background to the foreground: What do classroom environments that support authentic discussions look like? American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 370–399. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207302173
Hähkiöniemi, M., Lehesvuori, S., Nieminen, P., Hiltunen, J., & Jokiranta, K. (2019). Three dimensions of dialogicity in dialogic argumentation. Studia Paedagogica, 24(4), 199–219.
Hennessy, S., Calcagni, E., Leung, A., & Mercer, N. (2021). An analysis of the forms of teacher-student dialogue that are most productive for learning. Language and Education, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1956943
Hennessy, S., Rojas-Drummond, S., Higham, R., Márquez, A. M., Maine, F., Ríos, R. M., García-Carrión, R., Torreblanca, O., & Barrera, M. J. (2016). Developing a coding scheme for analysing classroom dialogue across educational contexts. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 9, 16–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.12.001
Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: a systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024
Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher–Student Dialogue During Classroom Teaching: Does It Really Impact on Student Outcomes? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 462–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004
Kecskes, I. (2017). From Pragmatics to Dialogue. In E. Weigand (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue (pp. 78–92). Routledge.
Khong, T. D. H., Saito, E., & Gillies, R. M. (2019). Key issues in productive classroom talk and interventions. Educational Review, 71(3), 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1410105
Kim, M.-Y., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2019). What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003
Krabbe, E. (2003). Metadialogues. In F. van Eemeren, A. Blair, C. Willard, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view (pp. 83–90). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_7
Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking Together and Alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15569530
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611402512
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(2), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600625447
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. Academic Press.
Lefstein, A. (2009). Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling: Teaching “powerful verbs” in the English National Literacy Strategy. Linguistics and Education, 20(4), 378–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.04.002
Lefstein, A. (2010). More helpful as problem than solution: Some implications of situating dialogue in classrooms. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues (pp. 182–203). Routledge.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing.
Levine, S., Hauser, M., & Smith, M. W. (2022). Authority and authenticity in teachers’ questions about literature in three contexts. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 21(2), 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-03-2021-0021
Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge University Press.
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. John Benjamins.
Littleton, K., & Howe, C. (Eds.). (2010a). Educational Dialogues: Understanding and Promoting Productive Interaction. Routledge.
Littleton, K., & Howe, C. (2010b). Introduction. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational Dialogues. Understanding and Promoting Productive interaction (pp. 1–7). Routledge.
Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Routledge.
Long, F. (2018). Teacher ignorance? Should it be cherished or denied? In C. McDermott & J. Valenta (Eds.), Didactic Challenges (pp. 7–22). Antioch University Press.
Macagno, F. (submitted). Questions as dialogue games. The pragmatic dimensions of “authentic” questions.
Macagno, F., & Bigi, S. (2020). Analyzing dialogue moves in chronic care communication – Dialogical intentions and customization of recommendations for the assessment of medical deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 9(2), 167–198. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18044.mac
Macagno, F., Rapanta, C., Mayweg-Paus, E., & Garcia-Milà, M. (2022). Coding empathy in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics, 192, 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.02.011
Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. Nova Science Publishers.
Matusov, E., Marjanovic-Shane, A., & Gradovski, M. (2019). Dialogic pedagogy and polyphonic research art: Bakhtin by and for educators. Palgrave Macmillan.
McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20430
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Harvard University Press.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Multilingual matters.
Mercer, N. (2002). The art of interthinking. Teaching Thinking, 7, 8–11.
Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001
Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., Resnick, L. B., Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative Discourse Idealized and Realized: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press.
Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520500445425
Newman, R. (2017). Let’s talk talk: Utilising metatalk for the development of productive collaborative dialogues. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.04.006
Nikulin, D. (2010). Dialectic and dialogue. Stanford University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2021). Critical integrative argumentation: Toward complexity in students’ thinking. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1845173
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 261–290.
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3502_3
O’Connor, C., Michaels, S., & Chapin, S. (2015). “Scaling Down” to Explore the Role of Talk in Learning: From District Intervention to Controlled Classroom Study. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue (pp. 111–126). American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1_9
Osborne, J., Borko, H., Fishman, E., Gomez Zaccarelli, F., Berson, E., Busch, K. C., Reigh, E., & Tseng, A. (2019). Impacts of a Practice-Based Professional Development Program on Elementary Teachers’ Facilitation of and Student Engagement With Scientific Argumentation. American Educational Research Journal, 56(4), 1067–1112. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218812059
Rapanta, C. (forthcoming). Defining openness in teachers’ “open” questions: A pragmatic approach. Pragmatics & Society.
Rapanta, C., & Christodoulou, A. (2019). Walton’s types of argumentation dialogues as classroom discourse sequences. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100352
Rapanta, C., & Felton, M. K. (2022). Learning to Argue Through Dialogue: a Review of Instructional Approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 477–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09637-2
Rapanta, C., Gonçalves, C., Pereira, J. R., Cascalheira, D., Gil, B., Morais, R., Čermáková, A., Peck, J., Brummernhenrich, B., Jucks, R., Garcia-Milà, M., Miralda-Banda, A., Luna, J., Vrikki, M., Evagorou, M., & Macagno, F. (2021). Multicultural classroom discourse dataset on teachers’ and students’ dialogic empathy. Data in Brief, 39, 107518. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2021.107518
Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. (2022). Pragmatics, education and argumentation: Introduction to the special issue. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 36, Online advance publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100371
Rapanta, C., Vrikki, M., & Evagorou, M. (2021). Preparing culturally literate citizens through dialogue and argumentation: Rethinking citizenship education. The Curriculum Journal, 32(3), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.95
Resnick, L., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development. (pp. 163–194). Springer Publishing Company.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., Dong, T., Li, Y., Kim, I.-H., & Kim, S.-Y. (2008). Learning to think well: Application of argument schema theory to literacy instruction. In C. C. Block & S. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices, 2nd ed. (pp. 196–213). The Guilford Press.
Richards, K., & Pilcher, N. (2015). Avoiding Dialogues of Non-discovery through Promoting Dialogues of Discovery. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 3. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2015.101
Rocci, A. (2019). Modality in Argumentation: A Semantic Investigation of the Role of Modalities in the Structure of Arguments with an Application to Italian Modal Expressions. Springer.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
Schaffalitzky, C. (2022). What makes authentic questions authentic? Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 10, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2022.428
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: Volume 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Segal, A., & Lefstein, A. (2016). Exuberant, voiceless participation: an unintended consequence of dialogic sensibilities? L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 16, S.I. D(Dial. Ped.), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2016.16.02.06
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Vrikki, M., Wheatley, L., Howe, C., Hennessy, S., & Mercer, N. (2019). Dialogic practices in primary school classrooms. Language and Education, 33(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1509988
Walton, D. (1990). What is reasoning? What is an argument? Journal of Philosophy, 87, 399–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735
Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (2022). Formal dialogue models for argumentation in education and linguistics. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 36, 100388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100388
Walton, D. (2010). Types of dialogue and burdens of proof. In P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, & G. Simari (Eds.), Computational Models of Argument (COMMA) (pp. 13–24). IOS Press.
Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. State University of New York Press.
Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Chan, A., De, T., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2008). The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 360–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.05.003
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Major, L. (Eds.). (2020). The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education. Routledge.
Weigand, E. (2010). Language as Dialogue. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.022
White, B. (1993). Pulling students toward meaning or making meaning with students: Asking authentic questions in the literature classroom. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 9(1), 28–40.
Widdowson, H. G. (1972). The Teaching of English as Communication. ELT Journal, XXVII(1), 15–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/XXVII.1.15
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford University Press.
Wilen, W. W., & Clegg Jr, A. A. (1986). Effective questions and questioning: A research review. Theory & Research in Social Education, 14(2), 153–161.
Wilkinson, I. A. G., Reznitskaya, A., Bourdage, K., Oyler, J., Glina, M., Drewry, R., Kim, M.-Y., & Nelson, K. (2017). Toward a more dialogic pedagogy: changing teachers’ beliefs and practices through professional development in language arts classrooms. Language and Education, 31(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2016.1230129
Zillmer, N., & Kuhn, D. (2018). Do similar-ability peers regulate one another in a collaborative discourse activity? Cognitive Development, 45, 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2017.12.002