Article published in:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 11:4 (2020) ► pp. 591–614

Text selection proposals in dialogic reading in primary school

| NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences | University of Groningen
| NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences
| University of Groningen
| University of Groningen | University of the Witwatersrand
In dialogic reading during inquiry learning in primary school, pupils read, think and talk together about text fragments for answering their research questions. This paper demonstrates from a conversational analytic perspective, how the shared activity of text selection is constructed in a goal oriented conversation and how text selection proposals are used. Two main practices are identified depending on the situation: (1) when all participants are reading the text for the first time, a text selection proposal is constructed with reading-out-loud fragments, and (2) when only one of the participants is reading the text, a text selection proposal is constructed with an indexical text reference and indicative summary of the topic. In both practices, a separate utterance that functions as a proposal is required to accomplish the complete text selection proposal turn.
Keywords: dialogic reading, peer interaction, text selection proposals, conversation analysis: inquiry learning, primary education, classroom interaction
Published online: 20 November 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.17029.pul
References

References

Antaki, Charles. C.
2011 Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bereiter, Carl
2009 Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
[ p. 611 ]
Berenst, Jan
2011 Samenwerken en taalvaardigheid. Samenwerkend leren als werkvorm voor de stimulering van de mondelinge en schriftelijke taalvaardigheid van basisschoolkinderen. Raak-PRO projectvoorstel. [Cooperation and Language Proficiency. Collaborative learning as a practice for promoting children’s oral and written language proficiency in primary school. Raak-Pro Research Proposal. Leeuwarden: NHL University of Applied Sciences.Google Scholar
Braam, Hilde M.
2015 Voorstellen en reacties tijdens peer-interactie in de midden- en bovenbouw van het primair onderwijs. [Proposals and responses during peer interaction in primary education] (Unpublished Master ‘s thesis). University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Braam, Hilde M., Maaike Pulles, & Jan Berenst
2015 Bibliotheek in de les. Werken aan leesmotivatie en informatievaardigheden bij wereldoriëntatie. Onderzoeksverslag. [Library in the lesson. Working on reading motivation and information literacy in cultural-historical subjects. Research report] Leeuwarden: NHL University of Applied Sciences.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2014 What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3): 623–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul
2013 Turn design. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 131–149). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson
1996 Practices in the construction of turns: The “TCU” revisited. Pragmatics 6(3), 427–454. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
2012 Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke
1987 Establishing agreement. An analysis of proposal-acceptance sequences. Ph.D diss., University of Amsterdam. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Howe, Christine
2010 Peer dialogue and cognitive development. A two-way relationship? In Karen Littleton & Christine Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues. Understanding and promoting productive interaction. (pp. 32–47). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1984 Transcript Notation. In John M. Atkinson and John Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H.
1994 Responsive list construction: A conversational resource for accomplishing multifaceted social action. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13(1): 20–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1992 Activity types and language. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1979).Google Scholar
2013 Action formation and ascription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 101–130). Chichester, UK: Blackwell Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littleton, Karen, & Lucinda Kerawalla
2012 Trajectories of inquiry learning. In Karen Littleton, Eileen Scanlon & Mike Sharples (Eds.), Orchestrating inquiry learning (pp. 31–47). London & New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maine, Fiona
2013 How children talk together to make meaning from texts: A dialogic perspective on reading comprehension strategies. Literacy, 47(3), 150–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 612 ]
2015 Dialogic readers. Children talking and thinking together about visual texts. London & New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, Harry
2008 Inleiding in de conversatieanalyse. [Introduction to Conversation Analysis] Bussum, The Netherlands: Coutinho.Google Scholar
Melander, Helen & Fritjof Sahlström
2009 In tow of the blue whale. Learning as interactional changes in topical orientation. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 1519–1537. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, Neil
1995 Guided construction of knowledge. Talk amongst teachers and learner. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Mikkola, Piia & Esa Lehtinen
2014 Initiating activity shifts through use of appraisal forms as material objects during performance appraisal interviews. In Maurice Nevile, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann & Mirka Rauniomaa (Eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity (pp. 57–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Murphy, P. Karen, Ian A. G. Wilkinson, Anna O. Soter, Maeghan N. Hennessey & John F. Alexander
2009 Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3): 740–764. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nevile, Maurice, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann & Mirka Rauniomaa
2014 Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nystrand, Martin
2006 Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4): 392–412.Google Scholar
Palincsar, Annemarie S., Ann L. Brown & Suzanne M. Martin
1987 Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction. Educational Psychologist 22(3): 231–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rojas-Drummond, Sylvia, Nancy Mazón, Karen Littleton & Maricela Vélez
2012 Developing reading comprehension through collaborative learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(2): 138–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rojas-Drummond, Sylvia, Fiona Maine, Mariana Alarcón, Ana L. Trigo, Maria J. Barrea, Nancy Mazón, Maricela Vélez & Riikka Hoffman
2017 Dialogic literacy: Talking, reading and writing among primary school children. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 12:45–62, CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2007 Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Volume 1. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa
2012 Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies 14(6): 779–803. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa & Anssi Peräkylä
2012 Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3): 297–321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Jack Sidnell
2016 Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(2): 148–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, Jan
2012 The agenda as resource for topic introduction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies 14(1): 53–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ten Have, Paul
2007 Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). London: SAGE. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 613 ]
Van den Branden, Kris
2000 Does negotiation of meaning promote reading comprehension? A study of multilingual primary school classes. Reading Research Quarterly 35(3): 426–443. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walsweer, Albert P.
2015 Ruimte voor leren. [Space for Learning] Groningen/Leeuwarden: Ph.D diss. University of Groningen/NHL University of Applied Sciences.Google Scholar
Wegerif, Rupert
2013 Dialogic: Education for the internet age. London & New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weilenmann, Alexandra & Gustav Lymer
2014 Incidental and essential objects in interaction. paper documents in journalistic work. In Maurice Nevile, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann & Mirka Rauniomaa (Eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity (pp. 319–335). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
West, Donna
2012 Indexical reference to absent objects. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 6(1): 280–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar