Cover not available
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
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Data and method of analysis
  • 4.Findings: Talk about selection of text
    • 4.1Selection with reading-out-loud
    • 4.2Selection by indexical and indicative reference
  • 5.Conclusion and discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 20 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.17029.pul
References (39)
References
Antaki, Charles. C. 2011. Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bereiter, Carl. 2009. Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke. 1987. Establishing agreement. An analysis of proposal-acceptance sequences. Ph.D diss., University of Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Dialogic readers. Children talking and thinking together about visual texts. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle 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 411, 1519–1537. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevile, Maurice, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann & Mirka Rauniomaa. 2014. Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 121:45–62, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Volume 11. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa. 2012. Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies 14(6): 779–803. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Jack Sidnell. 2016. Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(2): 148–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, Jan. 2012. The agenda as resource for topic introduction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies 14(1): 53–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ten Have, Paul. 2007. Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). London: SAGE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

van Balen, Johanna, Myrte N. Gosen, Siebrich de Vries & Tom Koole
2024. Peer-to-peer-talk in whole-classroom discussions. International Journal of Educational Research 125 ► pp. 102354 ff. DOI logo
Pulles, Maaike, Jan Berenst, Kees de Glopper & Tom Koole
2022. Children's discussions about texts: Integrating and evaluating practices. Linguistics and Education 69 ► pp. 101051 ff. DOI logo
Pulles, Maaike, Jan Berenst, Tom Koole & Kees de Glopper
2021. Text formulations as practices of demonstrating understanding in dialogic reading. Text & Talk 41:4 ► pp. 515 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.