Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Tc
MC
a
KCTDTDE
I
ta1t2M
wNopp
0
Linguistics and Education 28 (2014) 79–91
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Linguistics and Education
j ourna l h omepa ge: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / l inged
he discursive construction of knowledge and equity inlassroom interactions
ichael A. Shepherd ∗
alifornia State University, Fresno, Department of Linguistics, 5245 N. Backer, M/S PB92, Fresno, CA 93740, USA
r t i c l e i n f o
eywords:lassroom discourseeacher–student interactioniscursive strategyurn allocationialogicquity
a b s t r a c t
Given the established relationship between student participation and learning, an equi-table distribution of turns at talk is critically important. This paper examines the discursivestrategies teachers use in allocating such turns during teacher-fronted lessons, demon-strating that the predominant strategy in many classrooms—one in which teachers avoiddispreferred (incorrect or inappropriate) responses by soliciting volunteers and nominat-ing only those students who actively seek the floor—is inconducive to the goal of equityinsofar as it allocates fewer turns to students who (due to culture, personality, etc.) vol-unteer less often. It is shown that the advantage of this strategy stems from teachers’ useof monologic recitation scripts. Consequently, abandoning such scripts in favor of moredialogic classroom discourse—as has long been recommended—would reduce the desir-ability of volunteer-based turn allocation, thus freeing teachers to promote an equitabledistribution of opportunities for student participation by nominating students regardlessof whether they seek the floor.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
ntroduction
It has long been recognized that all students can and should play an active role in classroom discourse, including havingurns at talk (e.g., Au & Mason, 1983; Emanuelsson & Sahlström, 2008; Griffin & Mehan, 1981; Hiebert et al., 1997). From
social-constructivist perspective, learning takes place through active participation in meaningful exchanges (e.g., Bruner,978, 1983; Nuthall, 1997; Pritchard & Woollard, 2010; Vygotsky, 1978), and the relationship between students’ participa-ion in such exchanges and their development of knowledge and critical thinking is well established (Christle & Schuster,003; Fassinger, 1995; Garside, 1996; Howard & Henney, 1998; Kember & Gow, 1994; Kerssen-Griep, Gayle, & Preiss, 2006;cCroskey, 1977; Voelkl, 1995; Weast, 1996).Of course, the importance of active student participation in no way diminishes the crucial role of silence and listening,
hich Schultz (2009) and others have pointed out. Indeed, most in the classroom must be silent in order for talk to be effective.evertheless, we should not accept a situation in which some students do a disproportionate share of the ‘listening’ and
thers a disproportionate share of the talking. In fact, an equitable distribution of turns at talk is not only morally just butedagogically necessary, because when some students are prevented from contributing their ideas, everyone’s learning isotentially diminished (Fennema, 1990; Hiebert et al., 1997).∗ Tel.: +1 559 278 0378.E-mail address: [email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.08.006898-5898/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
80 M.A. Shepherd / Linguistics and Education 28 (2014) 79–91
This paper presents a critical examination of the discursive strategies teachers use in allocating turns at talk duringteacher-fronted lessons. It is shown that the predominant floor-allocation strategy in many of today’s classrooms—Mehan’s(1979a) ‘invitation to bid,’ with which teachers increase the likelihood of eliciting the specific response sought by solicitingvolunteers and nominating only those students who actively seek the floor—is inherently inconducive to the goal of equityinsofar as it allocates fewer turns to students who (due to culture, personality, etc.) are ill disposed to volunteer. It is furtherdemonstrated that the predominance of this strategy is of relatively recent origin and that the strategy’s main interactionaladvantage stems from the ‘monologic’ nature (in the sense of Bakhtin, 1984, p. 5ff) of classroom interactions. Ultimately, itis proposed that an independently motivated and long-recommended change in the quality of classroom discourse (makingit more ‘dialogic,’ again in the sense of Bakhtin, 1984, p. 14ff) will facilitate a return to the formerly predominant floor-allocation strategy—Mehan’s (1979a) ‘individual nomination,’ which enables teachers to call on any student at any time.This, in turn, will enable teachers to promote true equity in the distribution of opportunities for student participation andlearning.
Theoretical framework
This paper follows Gutierrez and Larson (1994) in blending social theory and critical theory in examining the relationshipbetween teachers’ discursive practices and issues of knowledge and equity. Social constructivism views learning as a processof generating knowledge through social interaction (e.g., Bruner, 1978, 1983; Nuthall, 1997; Pritchard & Woollard, 2010;Vygotsky, 1978). From this perspective, it comes as no surprise that research has consistently shown a clear relationshipbetween students’ active involvement in classroom discourse and their development of knowledge and critical thinkingskills (Christle & Schuster, 2003; Fassinger, 1995; Garside, 1996; Howard & Henney, 1998; Kember & Gow, 1994; Kerssen-Griep et al., 2006; McCroskey, 1977; Voelkl, 1995; Weast, 1996). Given this established relationship between participationand learning, the distribution of turns at talk is central to the issue of equity in education.
Whereas social constructivism focuses on how learning takes place, critical pedagogy is about what is taught/learned(see, e.g., Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2008; Giroux, 2011). It focuses, in particular, on the role of formal education in repro-ducing the existing social order. This includes how certain voices and narratives are elevated while others are silenced,how hegemonic discourses are naturalized, and how different types of knowledge and different worldviews are ulti-mately validated or invalidated (see, e.g., Bloome, Carter, Christian, Otto, & Shuart-Faris, 2004; Carter, 2001, 2007; McLaren,1991).
Defining ‘equity’
The belief that education should be fair and equitable for all students is longstanding and has been the basis of countlessstudies of educational inequity, its causes, and possible solutions (see, e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2010; Secada, 1989; Secada,Fennema, & Byrd Adajian, 1995). The concept of equity has proven problematic, however, as the term has been used to referto widely different notions, often only implicitly (see Fennema, 1990). This section discusses three main definitions of equityin education.
One widely held view, which is also the legal standard for equity, is that equity means equity of opportunity (Fennema,1990). In educational settings, this means that students are not (as a matter of protocol, at least) segregated on the basis ofcharacteristics such as race/ethnicity or gender, but rather do their learning collectively in the same classrooms, ostensiblyenjoying the same rights and subject to the same rules.
Another notion of equity, which sets the bar somewhat higher, is what will be referred to as equity of experience. Under thisview, equity in education means that different students not only share the same classroom and are subject to the same rules,but have the same educational experiences, including being treated the same by their teachers. Studies have shown that, inpractice, different students often have very different educational experiences within the same classroom (see, e.g., Fennema& Peterson, 1987; Grieb & Easley, 1984). Crucially, from a social-constructivist view of learning, equity of experience includesstudents’ participating in a similar number of qualitatively comparable classroom interactions.
The third and most rigorous notion of equity in education is what will be referred to as equity of outcomes. As the termsuggests, this characterizes a state of affairs in which there are no differences in the educational attainment of different groups(though the inevitability of individual differences is generally still accepted; Fennema, 1990). The stubborn persistence ofachievement gaps, not to mention the perennial discussion of their causes and possible solutions, underscores just how farwe still are from achieving this ultimate form of equity (see, e.g., Burchinal et al., 2011; Timar & Maxwell-Jolly, 2012).
Clearly, the above definitions of equity ignore the fact that classroom discourse tends to privilege the ideas and experiencesof sociohistorically dominant groups, thus reproducing their power by naturalizing their discourses and narratives (see, e.g.,Bloome et al., 2004, pp. 163–164). As a result of this, despite being granted certain types of access, students of non-dominantgroups are marginalized by the naturalization of dominant discourses, their views silenced, and their experiences and
potential contributions invalidated (see, e.g., Carter, 2001, 2007). These issues of power and hegemony as obstacles to trueequity will be tackled in Section ‘Two with one stone: Recitation scripts, invitations to bid, and the nature of knowledge’.Until then, the above definitions will suffice for the purpose of highlighting the relevant differences among the variousfloor-allocation strategies.
M.A. Shepherd / Linguistics and Education 28 (2014) 79–91 81
Table 1Example of an individual nomination.
TEACHER: What time is it, Susan?SUSAN: Three o’clock.
Adapted from Sinclair and Coulthard (1975, p. 37).
Table 2Example of an invitation to reply.
F
otMlspttt
c2flsa
I
i
tCatassG
Sbc2
I
(t
r
e
TEACHER: Is Susan right? Is it three o’clock?STUDENTS: Yes!
loor allocation
Mehan (1979a, pp. 84–95) identifies three methods of determining who gets the floor after a teacher poses a question ortherwise elicits a student response during a whole-class lesson: individual nominations, invitations to reply, and invitationso bid (discussed in detail in Sections ‘Individual nominations’, ‘Invitations to reply’, and ‘Invitations to bid’, respectively).
ehan’s model of classroom floor-allocation has proven highly robust, having been successfully applied to teacher-frontedessons in other U.S. classrooms as well as classrooms in Puerto Rico (Griffin & Humphrey, 1978; McCollum, 1989), and theame model is used in coding the data for the present study. Moreover, although certain types of classroom activity haveroven problematic for the concept of the ‘conversational floor’ and for the notion that one speaker unambiguously holdshe floor at any given time (see Jones & Thornborrow, 2004), teacher-fronted lessons, such as those analyzed here, are nearhe more constrained end of Jones and Thornborrow’s ‘tighter–looser’ continuum of floor organization, and the notion ofhe floor in such lessons is generally unproblematic.
A naturalistic/ethnographic approach such as Mehan’s can be limiting (see, e.g., Macbeth, 2003), so it has long beenombined with what is now regarded as critical discourse analysis (see, e.g., Carter, 2011; Kumaravadivelu, 1999; Rogers,011; Rogers, Malancharuvil-Berkes, Mosley, Hui, & Joseph, 2005) in order to address issues such as the role of differentoor-allocation methods in creating an equitable or inequitable distribution of turns at talk.1 The three floor-allocationtrategies, as well as what is known about their relative frequency of use and their effects on the distribution of turns at talk,re discussed in detail in the next three sections.
ndividual nominations
In an individual nomination, a teacher extends a response opportunity and selects a specific student to respond. This isllustrated in Table 1.
The available data suggest that individual nominations were the primary floor-allocation method in U.S. classrooms inhe 1970s, accounting for more than 70 percent of teacher-initiated interactions (Griffin & Humphrey, 1978; Mehan, Cazden,oles, Fisher, & Maroules, 1976). In an early example of a study blending ethnography and critical discourse analysis, Griffinnd Humphrey (1978, p. 88) attribute the predominance of individual nominations to teachers’ goal of equitably distributingurns at talk and the fact that individual nominations make it easy to ensure that every student takes such a turn. Of course,lthough individual nominations facilitate the equitable distribution of turns at talk, they do not automatically guaranteeuch equitability. Individual nominations enable teachers to call on any student at any time, regardless of whether thattudent volunteers, but teachers can just as easily use this power to call on students in an inequitable manner (see, e.g.,ood, 1970).
Despite the enduring importance of equitably distributing turns at talk (see, e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2010; Secada, 1989;ecada et al., 1995), more recent research suggests that invitations to bid (discussed in Section ‘Invitations to bid’) have sinceecome the predominant floor-allocation method in many classrooms (Lemke, 1990, p. 7). At least a few educators, though,ontinue to recognize the value of individual nominations for promoting equity (see, e.g., Dallimore, Hertenstein, & Platt,006).
nvitations to reply
A second floor-allocation method—known as an invitation to reply—“enables students to state what they know directly”
Mehan, 1979a, p. 92). That is, it involves a teacher’s extending a response opportunity and allowing students to self-selecto speak, rather than the teacher’s selecting a speaker. An example of an invitation to reply appears in Table 2.When students are allowed to self-select to speak, it is possible that multiple participants will self-select simultaneously,esulting in overlap (Griffin & Humphrey, 1978, p. 89; McHoul, 1978). One way in which teachers address this concern
1 See, e.g., Griffin and Humphrey (1978), who attribute the predominance of individual nominations in their data to the teachers’ goal of ensuring thatvery student takes a turn.
82 M.A. Shepherd / Linguistics and Education 28 (2014) 79–91
Table 3Example of an invitation to bid.
TEACHER: Who can tell me what time it is.
STUDENTS: [Raise hands]TEACHER: Susan.SUSAN: Three o’clock.is by using invitations to reply only for relatively simple elicitations (Margutti, 2006). Such elicitations include sentencecompletions (Koshik, 2002; Lerner, 1995; Margutti, 2006, 2010), chorus elicitations (Mehan, 1974), wh-question forms, andyes/no questions (Margutti, 2006). These sorts of simple elicitations yield maximally projectable discourse, thus facilitating‘chorusing’ and minimizing the risk of having a number of different responses spoken simultaneously (Jones & Thornborrow,2004). For more complex elicitations, most teachers avoid invitations to reply, preferring to select a specific student to speak(via an individual nomination or invitation to bid) rather than risk having several students call out different responsessimultaneously or attempt to gain the floor by being the first to begin speaking (Mehan et al., 1976, p. 152).
In addition to the risk of (non-identical) overlapping responses, research suggests that allowing unconstrained studentcontributions during lessons tends to compromise the depth and accuracy of lesson content (Emanuelsson & Sahlström,2008). Even more problematic, particularly for the goal of equitably distributing turns at talk, is the fact that truly unmediateddiscussions are typically dominated by a handful of students (Allen, 1992). In other words, despite the fact that all studentshave the same right to self-select for a turn at talk (i.e., there is equity of opportunity, as discussed in Section ‘Defining‘equity”), some students are more inclined to seek turns than others (Fritschner, 2000). As a result, tying the distributionof turns at talk to student initiative ends up being a recipe for inequity of experience (see Section ‘Defining ‘equity”). Theresulting disadvantage of having fewer turns at talk, which is known to curtail learning (Christle & Schuster, 2003; Fassinger,1995; Garside, 1996; Howard & Henney, 1998; Kember & Gow, 1994; Kerssen-Griep et al., 2006; McCroskey, 1977; Voelkl,1995; Weast, 1996), is serious when it affects chiefly students whose individual personality inclines them to be reserved ordeferential to others, but it can be systematically disadvantageous in a culturally and ethnically diverse classroom whereinteractional styles are constrained by membership in home cultures with differing, often non-mainstream, interactionalcustoms (see, e.g., Balas, 2000).
Invitations to bid
A third floor-allocation method—known as an invitation to bid—involves a teacher’s extending a response opportunityand soliciting students to make themselves known (e.g., by raising a hand; Sahlström, 2002) if they want a turn at talk, andthen nominating one of the bidders. The example in Table 3 illustrates this.
As was mentioned in Section ‘Individual nominations’, the available research suggests that invitations to bid have replacedindividual nominations as the predominant floor-allocation method in U.S. classrooms (Lemke, 1990, p. 7). Like allowingstudents to self-select to speak, allowing them to bid (or not) for the floor provides equity of opportunity (all students havethe same right to bid). However, because some students are more inclined to seek turns than others (Fritschner, 2000), andbecause this strategy ties the distribution of turns at talk to student initiative, it ends up being another recipe for inequity ofexperience (see Section ‘Defining ‘equity”).
Overview
Following a summary of the data and methods, this paper first confirms that a shift to invitations to bid has in fact takenplace, through a quantitative analysis of the discursive strategies teachers use in allocating turns at talk in the 2008 SoCalclassroom corpus (see Section ‘Methods’). It then explores the impact of this shift on the distribution of turns at talk, pursuingthe hypothesis that in classrooms where turns at talk are distributed using primarily invitations to bid, the number of times astudent chooses to bid will significantly predict the number of turns that student has at talk (which will result in an inequitabledistribution of turns if—as seems inevitable—some students bid less often than others). Finally, it examines the relationshipbetween the main interactional advantage of invitations to bid and the nature of classroom interactions, proposing that anindependently motivated and long-recommended change in the quality of classroom discourse will facilitate both a returnto individual nominations and the establishment of true equity in classroom discourse.
Methods
The SoCal classroom corpus consists of detailed transcriptions of eight reading and math lessons—approximately 4.5 h ofinteraction—video-recorded in 2008 in three third-grade classes (students ages 8–9) at a diverse Southern California publicelementary school located in a lower-middle class suburban neighborhood.2 The three teachers in the corpus are White
2 Two reading and two math lessons were recorded in one of the three classes, and one reading and one math lesson were recorded in each of the othertwo.
fsa
R
idtv
rdpoElf
otba
tcaa
T
Mftt
ustsuCpaaw
C
wecpnnrni
M.A. Shepherd / Linguistics and Education 28 (2014) 79–91 83
emales. At the time of recording, one was in her 11th year of teaching, one in her 13th, and one in her 24th. Of the 20tudents in each class, approximately half are White and half are Hispanic, with roughly equal numbers of boys and girlsnd just under 42 percent receiving free or reduced-price meals, all of which was representative of the school at that time.
ecording
The lessons were recorded using a tripod-mounted digital video camera with an attached wide-angle lens. Given thenevitability of quiet, unclear, and otherwise difficult-to-transcribe speech in a room with 20 children, a supplementaligital audio recorder was placed in the opposite corner of each classroom from where the video camera was set up. Dueo equipment-related limitations, a few students were outside of the camera’s field of view, but the majority were alwaysisible in each classroom.
In order to mitigate the teachers’ and students’ consciousness of the investigator’s and equipment’s presence during theecording sessions, observation-only visits were made to each classroom one week prior to recording. During these visits, asuring the recording sessions, the video camera and supplemental audio recorder were set up while the teacher and studentsrepared for each lesson. The video camera was placed as unobtrusively as possible—in a back corner of each classroom,ut of the teacher’s and students’ immediate lines of sight—and was not manipulated while recording (as recommended byrickson, 2006). During the lessons, the investigator sat near the camera quietly making fieldnotes, and at the end of eachesson, the equipment was taken down while the teacher and students prepared to leave the classroom (for morning recessollowing the reading lessons and for lunch following the math lessons).
All observation and recording took place on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. This was done at the recommendationf the school’s principal, who noted that standardized testing is scheduled in the same way because students are more likelyo be absent, as well as generally less focused, on Mondays and Fridays. The timing of the lessons themselves was determinedy the school and was the same in all three classrooms: the reading lessons ran from approximately 9:15 a.m. to 10:05 a.m.,nd the math lessons from approximately 11:15 a.m. to 12:10 p.m.
As it worked out, the teachers and students seemed to pay virtually no attention to the investigator or the camera, andhere were no apparent differences in teacher or student behavior between the observation and recording sessions. As a finalheck, each teacher was asked, after recording, how conscious she had been of the investigator’s and the camera’s presencend whether she had noticed any differences in the students’ behavior. All three indicated that they and their students wereccustomed to having visitors and that there had been no deviations from the norm.
ranscription
Following earlier research on teacher–student interactions (Griffin & Humphrey, 1978; McCollum, 1989; Mehan, 1979a;ehan et al., 1976; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975), and consistent with the goals of the present study, the SoCal classroom corpus
ocuses on teacher-fronted lessons, excluding periods of individual and group work, as well as times when the teachers reado the students without asking questions. Approximately 4.5 h of reading and math lessons (out of about 6.5 h of video) wereranscribed into four columns: Non-verbal, Line, Speaker, and Verbal.
Into the Non-verbal column were transcribed all visible instances of students’ raising hands, lowering hands, standingp, sitting down, leaving their desks, and returning to them; any non-verbal discourse (e.g., pointing) that accompanied atudent’s turn at talk; all other instances of non-verbal student discourse that the teacher responded to; and occasionallyhe teacher’s pointing, gaze direction, or other non-verbal discourse, but only when clearly relevant and/or exceptionallyalient. The Line column aligns consecutive, four-digit reference numbers (e.g., 0001, 0002, 0003, etc.) with each intonationnit (IU)—defined as “a stretch of speech uttered under a single coherent intonation contour” (Du Bois, Schuetze-Coburn,umming, & Paolino, 1993, p. 47)—or pause. In the Speaker column was recorded the name or title (e.g., “Teacher”) of theroducer of the utterance on the same line in the adjacent Verbal column. Into the Verbal column were transcribed alludible utterances, in standard orthography, along with all other audible vocalizations (e.g., laughter) and the durations ofll periods of verbal silence (timed to the nearest 10th of a second). Also indicated are intonation, overlap, and latching, asell as notable deviations in length, volume, and speed (see Appendix A for a key to transcript notations and symbols).
oding
This study combines an ethnographic approach (e.g., Mehan, 1979a) to the coding and analysis of classroom interactionith elements of critical discourse analysis (e.g., Carter, 2011; Kumaravadivelu, 1999; Rogers, 2011; Rogers et al., 2005) in
xamining the consequences of those interactions (see also Macbeth, 2003). Preliminary analyses of the SoCal classroomorpus revealed that the teachers initiate interactions with students in the same three ways that Mehan (Mehan, 1979a,p. 84–95) identified, namely, individual nominations, invitations to reply, and invitations to bid (see Sections ‘Individualominations’, ‘Invitations to reply’ and ‘Invitations to bid’). Individual nominations involve selecting a specific student—by
ame or by nonverbal means such as pointing, nodding, or eye contact—to respond to a question or other cue. Invitations toeply involve the teacher’s opening the floor for any contextually relevant response, allowing students to speak without theeed to be selected. Invitations to bid solicit students to make themselves known (e.g., by raising a hand; Sahlström, 2002)f they want a turn at talk, and then nominate one of the bidders.
84 M.A. Shepherd / Linguistics and Education 28 (2014) 79–91
Table 4Excerpt showing an individual nomination.
Non-Verbal Line Speaker Verbal
Teacher holds up graph paper 1093 TEACHER what will you do <with this>,
1094 uh,
1095 (0.3)
Anita raises hand 1096 piece of graph paper that has little tiny squares on it.
1097 (0.8)
Rodrigo’s hand was not raised 1098 Rodrigo.
Anita lowers hand 1099 (1.4)
1100 RODRIGO um,
1101 (0.4)
1102 do the same thing as what,
Rodrigo lifts his graph paper 1103 (0.6)
1104 you did with this?=
Teacher nods slightly 1105 TEACHER =◦exactly◦.
1106 ◦you’re going to use the strategy of using an array◦,
Table 5Excerpt showing an invitation to reply.
Non-verbal Line Speaker Verbal
Reading from Charlotte’s Web 0218 TEACHER AND DON’T CROSS THE RACETRACK when the horses are coming.
0219 said Missus Zuckerman,
Teacher looks up from the book 0220 (0.4)
0221 sound like parents?
0222 (0.4)
0223 STUDENTS yeah.
Both individual nominations and invitations to bid lead to the teacher’s nominating an individual student; the crucialdifference lies in whether that student bid. Therefore, individual nominations were defined as follows for the purposes ofcoding:
Individual nomination – An interaction in which the teacher nominates a student without that student’s having bid(regardless of whether other students bid in response to the teacher’s elicitation).
The excerpt in Table 4 exemplifies such an interaction.In Table 4, although Anita takes the teacher’s question as initiating an invitation to bid and raises a hand (line 1096), the
teacher makes it an individual nomination by calling on Rodrigo, whose hand was not raised (line 1098).As for invitations to reply and invitations to bid, preliminary analyses of the SoCal classroom corpus also revealed that
teachers do not typically mark or distinguish these explicitly. According to the analyses, the teachers and students insteadrely on question type as the indicator, treating as invitations to reply all (and only) yes/no questions (n = 33) and directivesto read or recite responses (n = 33), a practice that is consistent with the need for multi-party responses to be simple inorder to avoid the risk of (non-identical) overlapping responses (Griffin & Humphrey, 1978, p. 89; Margutti, 2006; McHoul,1978). All other ‘unassigned’ question types were, by default, treated as invitations to bid (cf. Levinson, 1992, on the role ofexpectations in different activity types). Therefore, invitations to reply and invitations to bid were defined as follows forthe purposes of coding:
Invitation to reply – An interaction in which the teacher directs to the class a yes/no question or a cue requiringreading or recitation.
Invitation to bid – An interaction in which the teacher directs to the class a response opportunity other than aninvitation to reply and subsequently nominates one of the students who bid.
The excerpts in Tables 5 and 6 exemplify an invitation to reply and an invitation to bid, respectively.To ensure reliability, the transcripts were double-coded (Miles & Huberman, 1984), and code-recode consistencies cal-
culated. The resulting code-recode consistencies for individual nominations, invitations to reply, and invitations to bid were96.7 percent, 99.1 percent, and 98.5 percent, respectively.
Post-recording discussions with participants
In addition to asking participants, as a check on methodology, about their consciousness of the investigator’s and camera’spresence and any differences in their students’ behavior (as noted at the end of Section ‘Recording’), the investigator discussed
some observations with them. Some such discussion took place immediately following the recording sessions, and moretook place a few months later, following preliminary data analysis. The fruits of these conversations are included in thefollowing section.
M.A. Shepherd / Linguistics and Education 28 (2014) 79–91 85
Table 6Excerpt showing an invitation to bid.
Non-verbal Line Speaker Verbal
0031 TEACHER we’re going to be using our reading strategies,
0032 to help us strengthen comprehension.
0033 (0.8)
Kayla raises hand 0034 <what does that mean>.
Rodrick raises hand 0035 <what does comprehension mean>.
0036 that’s a really big word.
0037 (0.5)
0038 <comprehension>.
Kayla lowers hand 0039 Kayla.
Rodrick lowers hand 0040 what’s comprehension.
0041 KAYLA the understanding of something.
0042 TEACHER yeah.
0043 understanding of something.
0044 good.
Fc
R
tpsea
nau
I
s7fma
ig. 1. Pie charts contrasting the predominance of individual nominations in the 1970s with the predominance of invitations to bid in the 2008 SoCallassroom corpus.
esults and discussion
There are 328 teacher-initiated interactions in the SoCal classroom corpus. Of these, individual nominations—where aeacher extends a response opportunity and selects a student to respond without that student’s having bid—make up 9.1ercent (n = 30); invitations to reply—relatively simple elicitations, such as yes/no questions and sentence completions, thattudents recognize as calling for chorus responses—make up 20.1 percent (n = 66); and invitations to bid—where a teacherxtends a response opportunity and solicits students to make themselves known (e.g., by raising a hand) if they want a turnt talk, then nominates one of the bidders—make up 70.7 percent (n = 232).
This stands in stark contrast to the results of comparable analyses from the 1970s, which found that individual nomi-ations constituted more than 70 percent of teacher-initiated interactions (Griffin & Humphrey, 1978; Mehan et al., 1976),nd supports Lemke’s (1990, p. 7) impression that invitations to bid have become the predominant floor-allocation methodsed in classrooms. Fig. 1 illustrates this shift.
nvitations to bid and the distribution of turns at talk
Classroom research from the 1970s indicates that teachers of that era used primarily individual nominations because theyaw it as their responsibility to ensure that turns at talk were distributed equitably (see, e.g., Griffin & Humphrey, 1978, p.8). The subsequent shift to using primarily invitations to bid transfers from teachers to students much of the responsibilityor the distribution of turns at talk and, crucially, ties this distribution to student initiative.3 Invitations to bid do more than
erely allow students to opt out of participating; they make students unavailable for nomination by default—students arevailable for nomination only if they make themselves available by bidding.
3 For discussion of the motivations for this shift, see Section ‘On the motivations for the shift to invitations to bid’.
86 M.A. Shepherd / Linguistics and Education 28 (2014) 79–91
Fig. 2. Scatter plot showing the relationship between the average number of times per lesson a student chooses to bid (x-axis) and the average number ofturns at talk per lesson that student receives (y-axis).
Crucially, the present study reveals that this shift from individual nominations to invitations to bid has other conse-quences, in terms of floor-allocation. Specifically, invitations to bid result in fewer turns being allocated to students who(due to personality, culture, etc.) make themselves available for nomination less often. Consequently, although invitations tobid provide equity of opportunity, insofar as all students enjoy the same right to seek a turn by bidding, they lead to inequityof experience (see Sections ‘Defining ‘equity” and ‘Invitations to reply’).
In concrete, quantitative terms, the average student in the SoCal classroom corpus bids 5.9 times per lesson, but individualstudents’ averages range from 0 to 16.5 bids per lesson, with a standard deviation of 4.2. Even more striking than the hugerange of frequencies with which different students bid is the relationship between how often a student bids and the numberof turns that student has at talk. One student in the corpus, who never bids, does not have a single turn at talk during anentire 50-min lesson and has only one during the next 55-min lesson (and even that turn is thanks only a rare individualnomination). Meanwhile, the most frequent bidder, who bids an average of 16.5 times per lesson, has five turns at talk duringone lesson and three more during the next.
Indeed, a linear regression analysis confirms, as hypothesized, that the number of times a student chooses to bid not onlysignificantly but overwhelmingly predicts the number of turns that that student has at talk, ̌ = .84, t(28) = 8.16, p < .001, andexplains the majority of the variance in the number of turns at talk that are allocated to different students, R2 = .69, F(1,28) = 66.58, p < .001. Fig. 2 illustrates the extremely close relationship between bids and turns at talk.
It is important to note that the nearly lock-step relationship between student initiative and turns at talk that is illustratedin Fig. 2 exists despite the teachers’ self-reported practice of calling on infrequent bidders whenever they bid, and includesindividual nominations, with which teachers can nominate students who seldom or never bid.4 In other words, even withteachers’ making a conscious effort to promote equity where possible, when turns at talk are allocated using primarily invi-tations to bid, inequity is virtually assured. Given this, shifting back to using primarily individual nominations represents anecessary step toward establishing greater equity in classroom discourse. Although individual nominations do not automat-ically guarantee an equitable distribution of turns at talk (teachers can use them to call on students in an inequitable manner,as was noted in Section ‘Individual nominations’), the overwhelming correlation between bids and nominations illustrated
in Fig. 2 shows that teachers do distribute turns at talk equitably among those students who are available for nomination (i.e.,those who bid in response to a particular elicitation). Thus, a shift back to using primarily individual nominations, and the4 This practice of calling on infrequent bidders whenever they bid was mentioned during a discussion that took place immediately following the recordingsessions (see Section ‘Post-recording discussions with participants’). Its effects and the effects of the few individual nominations are quite limited, and itis not clear that they lead to greater equity. These effects manifest themselves in the lower-left corner of Fig. 2, where the least frequent bidders, all ofwhom average fewer than three bids per lesson, receive as many turns at talk as students who bid as many as seven times per lesson. As for the individualnominations, their effects are most visible in the two leftmost datapoints of Fig. 2, which show the number of turns at talk exceeding the number of bidsfor the two least frequent bidders, a sign that they were given (via individual nomination) turns that they did not seek.
cg
O
ipau
ecoto
Ltst2p
tbaao2oatgi
ipep1ivn
T
G1ttc
nFaMbs
M.A. Shepherd / Linguistics and Education 28 (2014) 79–91 87
oncomitant establishment of a classroom discourse in which all students are available for nomination at all times, wouldo a long way toward establishing an equitable distribution of turns at talk.
n the motivations for the shift to invitations to bid
It is probably safe to assume that teachers did not intend to create inequity when they shifted from using primarilyndividual nominations to using primarily invitations to bid. Therefore, understanding why the shift took place is an importantart of moving back away from invitations to bid and toward a more equitable distribution of turns at talk. As with otherspects of this study, this exploration of motives blends ethnographic and critical approaches, inquiring about participants’nderstanding of the shift as well as exploring other factors of which participants seem unaware (cf. Macbeth, 2003).
Discussion of the shift from individual nominations to invitations to bid with those involved in the study reveals thatducators are well aware of the change and see it as part of a larger, ostensibly positive move away from the ‘authoritarian’lassroom of old and toward a more ‘egalitarian’ model (cf. Cazden, 2001). One even compared the former predominancef individual nominations to the predominance of classrooms where the desks were arranged in straight rows facing theeacher (the desks in the classrooms studied here were arranged in clusters of four or six with the students facing eachther).
Examining the invitation to bid using some basic tools of pragmatics and conversation analysis (see, e.g., Cutting, 2008;evinson, 1983; Liddicoat, 2011; Yule, 1996) provides additional insight into the advantages and disadvantages of allocatingurns at talk using this discursive strategy. Invitations to bid are comprised of four turns: (1) the teacher’s indication that atudent contribution is sought; (2) some number of students’ bidding to contribute; (3) the teacher’s nomination of one ofhe bidders; and (4) the nominated student’s contribution. In terms of adjacency-pair structure (see, e.g., Heritage, 1984, pp.46–247; Sacks, 1992, pp. 521–570; Schegloff, 1968), these turns are arguably best analyzed as consisting of a cue–biddingresequence (turns 1 and 2) followed by a nomination–response main sequence (turns 3 and 4).5
This adjacency-pair analysis highlights an important interactional advantage of invitations to bid that may help explainhe shift in floor-allocation strategies. Teachers have long known that nominating a student without his/her having bid cane risky, as the nominee may be unprepared to respond (McHoul, 1978), whereas students who bid are more likely to have
response (Griffin & Humphrey, 1978, p. 90). In terms of the above analysis, invitations to bid reduce the risk of calling onn unprepared student by placing a cue–bidding presequence before the main nomination–response sequence (for moren presequences, see, e.g., Cutting, 2008, pp. 29–31; Levinson, 1983, pp. 345–356; Liddicoat, 2011, pp. 125–139; Schegloff,007; Yule, 1996, pp. 67–69). Just as other presequences, such as pre-invitations and pre-requests, help avoid dispreferredutcomes like rejection and denial, respectively, the cue–bidding presequence in an invitation to bid helps teachers avoidnother dispreferred outcome, namely, calling on a student who is not ready with the specific response sought. Invitationso bid (and the cue–bidding presequence, in particular) do this by helping teachers identify which students are most likely toive the intended response. Indeed, such students self-identify by bidding in response to an elicitation that asks (implicitlyf not explicitly), “Who knows the answer?” (cf. Mehan, 1979a, p. 92).
Given this interactional advantage of invitations to bid, teachers might well regard returning to individual nominationsn pursuit of greater equity as something of a trade-off. As the following section discusses, however, the real issue, from theerspective of critical pedagogy (see, e.g., Darder et al., 2008; Giroux, 2011; McLaren, 1991), is how much good it wouldven do for teachers to equitably distribute turns at talk when the turns in question are merely opportunities for vacuousarticipation in hegemonic discourse that functions primarily to reproduce the existing social order (Gutierrez & Larson,994). As will be demonstrated, it is ultimately the ‘monologic’ nature (in the sense of Bakhtin, 1984, p. 5ff) of classroom
nteractions that gives rise to the main interactional advantage of invitations to bid. Consequently, an independently moti-ated and long-recommended change in the quality of classroom discourse is needed to facilitate both a return to individualominations and the establishment of true equity in classroom discourse.
wo with one stone: Recitation scripts, invitations to bid, and the nature of knowledge
In the classrooms studied, as in many others (see, e.g., Bellack, Kliebard, Hyman, & Smith, 1966; Griffin & Humphrey, 1978;utierrez & Larson, 1994; Hoetker & Ahlbrand, 1969; Mehan, 1979a; Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991; Rosenshine & Stevens,986; Schulman, 1986) the lessons are almost exclusively ‘monologic’ (in the sense of Bakhtin, 1984, p. p. 5ff), insofar as
he teachers operate from predetermined ‘recitation scripts’ (Gutierrez & Larson, 1994), and student participation is limitedo filling in teacher-designated slots within these scripts (Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser, & Long, 2003). Indeed, a definingharacteristic of recitation scripts is the predominance of ‘known-answer’ questions, i.e., questions to which teachers already5 The alternative would be to treat turns (1) and (4) as forming a cue–response adjacency pair that is analogous to the two turns of an individualomination, and treat turns (2) and (3) as forming a bidding–nomination insertion sequence. However, this analysis is clearly incorrect for two reasons.irst, insertion sequences are typically optional, but bidding is clearly not optional in an invitation to bid. When students respond to an invitation to bid bynswering (without bidding and waiting to be nominated), they are ignored, if not reprimanded (Lemke, 1990, p. 70; Mehan, 1979a, p. 111; Mercer, 1992).oreover, when an invitation to bid receives no response from a class, the teacher’s reaction does not index the failure of one or more students to answer
ut the failure of anyone to bid. The fact that providing an answer in response to an invitation to bid is unacceptable, combined with the fact that whatuch elicitations make interactionally relevant is not answering but bidding, shows that bidding cannot be part of an insertion sequence.
88 M.A. Shepherd / Linguistics and Education 28 (2014) 79–91
have specific answers in mind (see, e.g., Barnes, Britton, & Rosen, 1969; Mehan, 1979b; Nystrand et al., 2003; Wood, 1992).6
Teachers who structure classroom interactions around such questions are essentially lecturing; students are invited to saysome of the words, but the narrative ‘voice’ is always the teacher’s.
More importantly, such monologic discursive practices, and the hegemonic recitation scripts with which these prac-tices are enacted, also serve primarily to reproduce existing power relations. Recitation scripts typically embody almostexclusively the ideas and experiences of sociohistorically dominant groups, thus reproducing their power by naturalizingtheir discourses and narratives (see, e.g., Bloome et al., 2004, pp. 163–164). This naturalization of dominant discourses alsofunctions to marginalize students of non-dominant groups, silencing their views and invalidating their experiences andpotential contributions (see, e.g., Carter, 2001, 2007). Such scripts are, thus, symptomatic of an inflexible, “one-size-fits-all”curriculum that is hopelessly at odds with our ever-increasing sociocultural diversity (Genishi & Dyson, 2009).
Crucially for the purposes of this paper, it is the rigid, predetermined nature of monologic recitation that also gives riseto the main interactional advantage of invitations to bid, namely, that of helping teachers identify which students are mostlikely to give the specific response sought. Given a predetermined script, any contribution that deviates is dispreferred andmust be avoided or (once made) repaired (Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989, p. 125). When classroom discourse is ‘dialogic,’by contrast (again in the sense of Bakhtin, 1984, p. 5ff), there is no script per se, and participants can actively expand uponand modify each other’s contributions as their voices ‘refract’ each other (Nystrand et al., 2003). Moreover, when teachersmove away from scripted recitation, even for a few moments, student learning measurably improves (see, e.g., Gamoran& Nystrand, 1991; Nystrand, 1997), and by moving away from monologic discourse more permanently, teachers couldultimately alter the notion that knowledge is a set of facts to be memorized and displayed.
Dialogic classroom discourse also affords students the opportunity to appropriate their language (in the sense of Bakhtin,1981, p. 293), developing an authorial voice and agentive identity. In doing this, students must learn to recognize the historiesof the interactions through which they learned their words, as well as how these histories affect both what can be said andhow what is said will be interpreted. As Bakhtin puts it,
[the word] becomes “one’s own” only when the speaker populates it with his own intentions, his own accent, when heappropriates the word, adapting it to his own semantic and expressive intention. Prior to this moment of appropriation,the word does not exist in a neutral and impersonal language (it is not, after all, out of a dictionary that the speaker getshis words!), but rather it exists in other people’s mouths, in other people’s contexts, serving other people’s intentions:it is from there that one must take the word, and make it one’s own. (1981, pp. 293–294)
Students must also recognize how they have been addressed in these interactions, as their roles and identities havebeen constructed for them by others. Having understood this, students can develop their own authorial voices, taking onan agentive role in the futures of interactions, and in the process learn to be answerable not only for their authorship ofthemselves but for how they address others in the process.
Discussion of specific proposals for transforming classroom discourse from monologic to dialogic is beyond the scope ofthis paper (but see, e.g., Barnes et al., 1969; Beck, McKeown, Hamilton, & Kucan, 1998; Dewey, 1910, 1933; Gayle, Preiss,& Allen, 2006; Gutierrez & Larson, 1994; Hiebert et al., 1996; Lampert, Rittenhouse, & Crumbaugh, 1996; Mercer, 2003;Mercer, Dawes, & Staarman, 2009; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991; Wood, 1992). Crucially, though, suchproposals are not only compatible with the recommended return to individual nominations, they would facilitate it. In aclassroom where teacher-student interactions are not about finding and reciting predetermined ‘right’ answers, there isalso not the constant risk that a student’s response will deviate from the script, so the principal advantage of invitationsto bid over individual nominations essentially disappears. Consequently, there is no (good) reason to avoid calling on anystudent, and no need for teachers to use volunteer-seeking presequences, because every student has something to contribute,whether that student realizes it or not (Hiebert et al., 1997). In other words, given truly dialogic classroom discourse, thereis no reason not to use primarily individual nominations, thus helping ensure equity in the distribution of turns at talk andencouraging all students to contribute their ideas and to participate actively in their and their peers’ learning.
Conclusions
Given the established relationship between student participation and learning, promoting an equitable distribution ofturns at talk is of critical importance. Teachers use three main discursive strategies in allocating such turns: “individ-ual nominations”—selecting a student to respond without his/her having volunteered—“invitations to bid”—extending a
response opportunity and allowing students to self-select to speak—and “invitations to bid”—soliciting students who arewilling to respond to raise hands and then nominating one of the volunteers. Examination of the relative prevalence of thesestrategies in the 2008 SoCal classroom corpus, and comparison with equivalent data from the 1970s, reveals a dramatic6 Note that monologic classroom discourse is not synonymous with the three-part teacher–student interaction structure known variously as Initiation-Reply-Evaluation (IRE; Mehan, 1979a, p. 37), Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975, p. 21), and triadic dialog (Lemke, 1990, p. 8).This structure can be effectively used to perform a wide range of pedagogical functions, including the promotion of true dialogic discourse (Bloome et al.,2004, p. 55; Mercer, 1995; Mercer, Dawes, & Staarman, 2009; Nassaji & Wells, 2000; Wells, 1999).
sS
awbimate
asprrs
A
a
A
(
R
A
A
A
BBBBB
BB
B
B
M.A. Shepherd / Linguistics and Education 28 (2014) 79–91 89
hift. In the 1970s, individual nominations constituted over 70 percent of teacher-initiated interactions, whereas in theoCal classroom corpus, individual nominations constitute less than 10 percent, and invitations to reply over 70 percent.
Analysis of the adjacency-pair structure of the invitation to bid suggests a motivation for this shift. Individual nominationsllow teachers to select any student to respond, which can help ensure equitable participation, but nominating a studentho has not volunteered risks eliciting a response other than the specific one sought. The now-predominant invitation to
id functions to reduce this risk by adding a volunteer-soliciting presequence, which, like other presequences (e.g., pre-nvitations), helps avoid dispreferred responses. On the other hand, using primarily invitations to bid leads to inequity,
aking how often a student volunteers (which, in the SoCal classroom corpus, ranges from never for some students up to anverage of 16.5 times per lesson for others) the overwhelming determiner of how many turns that student has at talk. Givenhe established link between participation and learning, allocating fewer turns to students who (due to culture, personality,tc.) volunteer less often than others constitutes a serious injustice.
Ultimately, the risk of incorrect responses—which invitations to bid help reduce—is neither natural nor inevitable as feature of classroom discourse but stems from teachers’ using known-answer questions to enact monologic recitationcripts. As a result of this practice, any student contribution that deviates from the teacher’s predetermined script is dis-referred and must be avoided or (once made) repaired. If classroom discourse were made more dialogic, as has long beenecommended, this risk of dispreferred responses would essentially disappear, and there would be no (good) reason not toeturn to using primarily individual nominations, thus helping ensure true equity in the distribution of opportunities fortudent participation and learning.
cknowledgements
Special thanks are due to the teachers and students who participated in this research, as well as to the principal, parents,nd district officials who approved it.
ppendix A. Key to transcript notations and symbols
(0.3), (2.6) durations of timed pauses (in seconds)A: word [wordB: [word overlapA: word= B: =word latching (no pause between speakers’ turns)word? rising intonationword, continuing intonationword. falling intonationword! animated intonationword emphasis◦word◦ quietWORD loud>word word< fast<word word> slowwor- truncated wordword– truncated intonation unitwo:rd lengthening of the previous sound(word) uncertain transcription.hh audible inhalationhh audible exhalation@@@ laughter (one @ per “syllable”)xxxx incomprehensible (one x per incomprehensible syllable)
adapted from Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008; Jefferson, 2004).
eferences
llen, S. (1992). Student-sustained discussion: When students talk and the teacher listens. In N. A. Branscombe, D. Goswami, & J. Schwartz (Eds.), Studentsteaching, teachers learning (pp. 81–92). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
tkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Transcript notation. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.ix–xvi). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
u, K. H.-P., & Mason, J. M. (1983). Cultural congruence in classroom participation structures: Achieving a balance of rights. Discourse Processes, 6(2),145–167.
akhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.akhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Doestoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.alas, A. (2000). Using participation to assess students’ knowledge. College Teaching, 48(4), 122.arnes, D., Britton, J., & Rosen, H. (1969). Language, the learner and the school. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.eck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1998). Getting at the meaning: How to help students unpack difficult text. American Educator,
22(1–2), 66–71, 85.ellack, A. A., Kliebard, H. M., Hyman, R. T., & Smith, F. L., Jr. (1966). The language of the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
loome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2004). Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: Amicroethnographic perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.runer, J. S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R. J. Jarvella, & W. Levelt (Eds.), The child’s conception of language (pp. 241–256).
New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.runer, J. S. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
90 M.A. Shepherd / Linguistics and Education 28 (2014) 79–91
Burchinal, M., McCartney, K., Steinberg, L., Crosnoe, R., Friedman, S., McLoyd, V., & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2011). Examining theBlack–White achievement gap among low-income children using the NICHD study of early child care and youth development. Child Development,82(5), 1404–1410.
Carter, S. P. (2001). The possibilities of silence: African-American female cultural identity and secondary English classrooms. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University(Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Carter, S. P. (2007). Reading all that White crazy stuff: Black young women unpacking Whiteness in a high school British literature classroom. Journal ofClassroom Interaction, 41(2), 42–54.
Carter, S. P. (2011). Analyzing text and talk through critical discourse analysis. In D. Lapp, & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the Englishlanguage arts (pp. 375–378). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Christle, C. A., & Schuster, J. W. (2003). The effects of using response cards on student participation, academic achievement, and on-task behavior during
whole-class, math instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12(3), 147–165.Cutting, J. (2008). Pragmatics and discourse (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2006). Nonvoluntary class participation in graduate discussion courses: Effects of grading and cold calling.
Journal of Management Education, 30(2), 354–377.Darder, A., Baltodano, M. P., & Torres, R. D. (Eds.). (2008). The critical pedagogy reader. New York, NY: Routledge.Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: Heath.Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: Heath.Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D. (1993). Outline of discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards, & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking
data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (2nd ed., pp. 45–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Emanuelsson, J., & Sahlström, F. (2008). The price of participation: Teacher control versus student participation in classroom interaction. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 52(2), 205–223.Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore
(Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 177–191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’ contributions to students’ silence. Journal of Higher Education, 66(1),
82–96.Fennema, E. (1990). Justice, equity, and mathematics education. In E. Fennema, & G. C. Leder (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 1–9). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.Fennema, E., & Peterson, P. L. (1987). Effective teaching for girls and boys: The same or different? In D. C. Berliner, & B. V. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers
(pp. 111–125). New York, NY: Random House.Fritschner, L. M. (2000). Inside the undergraduate college classroom: Faculty and students differ on the meaning of student participation. Journal of Higher
Education, 71(3), 342–362.Gamoran, A., & Nystrand, M. (1991). Background and instructional effects on achievement in eighth-grade English and social studies. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 1, 277–300.Garside, C. (1996). Look who’s talking: A comparison of lecture and group discussion teaching strategies in developing critical thinking skills. Communication
Education, 45(3), 212–227.Gayle, B. M., Preiss, R. W., & Allen, M. (2006). How effective are teacher-initiated classroom questions in enhancing student learning? In B. M. Gayle, R. W.
Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen (Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional processes: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 279–293). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Genishi, C., & Dyson, A. H. (2009). Children, language, and literacy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York, NY: Continuum.Good, T. L. (1970). Which pupils do teachers call on? Elementary School Journal, 70(4), 190–198.Grieb, H., & Easley, J. (1984). A primary school impediment to mathematical equity: Case studies in role-dependent socialization. In M. Steincamp, & M. L.
Maehr (Eds.), Women in science. Vol. 2: Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 317–362). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Griffin, P., & Humphrey, F. (1978). Talk and task at lesson time. In R. W. Shuy, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Children’s functional language and education in the early
years. Final report to Carnegie Corporation.Griffin, P., & Mehan, H. (1981). Sense and ritual in classroom discourse. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication
situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 187–213). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton De Gruyter.Gutierrez, K., & Larson, J. (1994). Language borders: Recitation as hegemonic discourse. International Journal of Educational Reform, 3(1), 22–36.Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Malden. MA: Blackwell.Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction:
The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., et al. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Hoetker, J., & Ahlbrand, W. P. (1969). The persistence of recitation. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 145–167.Howard, J. R., & Henney, A. L. (1998). Student participation and instructor gender in the mixed-age college classroom. Journal of Higher Education, 69(4),
384–405.Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Polity Press.Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31).
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Jones, R., & Thornborrow, J. (2004). Floors, talk and the organization of classroom activities. Language in Society, 33(3), 399–423.Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student leaming. Journal of Innovative Higher Education, 65(1),
58–74.Kerssen-Griep, Gayle, B. M., & Preiss, R. W. (2006). Classroom interactions and educational outcomes. In B. M. Gayle, R. W. Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen
(Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional processes: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 129–147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 35, 277–309.Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 453–484.Lampert, M., Rittenhouse, P., & Crumbaugh, C. (1996). Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematical discourse. In D. R. Olson, & N. Torrance (Eds.),
The handbook of education and human development (pp. 731–764). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Lerner, G. H. (1995). Turn design and the organization of participation in instructional activities. Discourse Processes, 19(1), 111–131.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 66–100). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Liddicoat, A. L. (2011). Introduction to conversation analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Continuum.Macbeth, D. (2003). Hugh Mehan’s Learning Lessons reconsidered: On the differences between the naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse.American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 239–280.
M
M
M
MMMM
MMM
M
MM
MMNN
NN
NN
N
PRR
R
SSSSS
SSSST
VVWWW
Y
M.A. Shepherd / Linguistics and Education 28 (2014) 79–91 91
argutti, P. (2006). Are you human beings? Order and knowledge construction through questioning in primary classroom interaction. Linguistics andEducation, 17(4), 313–346.
argutti, P. (2010). On designedly incomplete utterances: What counts as learning for teachers and students in primary classroom interaction. Research onLanguage and Social Interaction, 43(4), 315–345.
cCollum, P. (1989). Turn-allocation in lessons with North American and Puerto Rican students: A comparative study. Anthropology & Education Quarterly,20, 133–156.
cCroskey, J. C. (1977). Classroom consequences of communication apprehension. Communication Education, 26, 27–33.cHoul, A. W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2), 183–213.cLaren, P. (1991). Critical pedagogy: Constructing an arch of social dreaming and a doorway to hope. Journal of Education, 173, 9–34.ehan, H. (1974). Accomplishing classroom lessons. In A. V. Cicourel, K. H. Jennings, S. H. M. Jennings, K. C. W. Leiter, R. MacKay, H. Mehan, & D. R. Roth
(Eds.), Language use and school performance. New York, NY: Academic Press.ehan, H. (1979a). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.ehan, H. (1979b). What time is it, Denise? Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 18(4), 285–294.ehan, H., Cazden, C. B., Coles, L., Fisher, S., & Maroules, N. (1976). The social organization of classroom lessons. CHIP Report 67. La Jolla, CA: University of
California, San Diego, Department of Psychology, Center for Human Information Processing.ercer, N. (1992). Talk for teaching-and-learning. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: Work of the National Oracy Project (pp. 215–223). London, UK: Hodder
& Stoughton (for the National Curriculum Council).ercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.ercer, N. (2003). The educational value of ‘dialogic talk’ in ‘whole-class dialogue’. In Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (Ed.), New perspectives on
spoken English in the classroom: Discussion papers (pp. 73–76). London, UK: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.ercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353–369.iles, M., & Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.assaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376–406.ational Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathe-
matics.ewman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.uthall, G. (1997). Understanding student thinking and learning in the classroom. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of
teachers and teaching (Vol. 2). Boston, MA: Kluwer.ystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.ystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25,
261–290.ystrand, M., Wu, 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.ritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social learning. New York, NY: Routledge.ogers, R. (Ed.). (2011). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. New York, NY: Routledge.ogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. O. G. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review
of Educational Research, 75(3), 365–416.osenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 376–391). New York,
NY: MacMillan.acks, H. (1992). G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on conversation, (Vol. 2). Malden, MA: Blackwell.ahlström, F. (2002). The interactional organization of hand raising in classroom interaction. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37(2), 47–57.chegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1080.chegloff, E. A. (2007). . Sequence organization in interaction (Vol. 1) New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.chulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research
on teaching (pp. 33–36). New York, NY: MacMillian.chultz, K. (2009). Rethinking classroom participation: Listening to silent voices. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.ecada, W. G. (Ed.). (1989). Equity in education. London, UK: Falmer Press.ecada, W. G., Fennema, E., & Byrd Adajian, L. (Eds.). (1995). New directions for equity in mathematics educatione. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.inclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London, UK: Oxford University Press.imar, T. B., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (Eds.). (2012). Narrowing the achievement gap: Perspectives and strategies for challenging times. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.oelkl, K. E. (1995). School warmth, student participation, and achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 63(2), 127–138.ygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
east, D. (1996). Alternative teaching strategies: The case for critical thinking. Teaching Sociology, 24(2), 189–194.ells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.ood, D. (1992). Teaching talk: How modes of teacher talk affect pupil participation. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: Work of the National Oracy Project(pp. 203–214). London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton (for the National Curriculum Council).ule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
