Text formulations as practices of demonstrating understanding in dialogic reading
-
Maaike Pulles
Maaike Pulles is a researcher at the NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences in Leeuwarden and at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Her PhD research is concerned with dialogic reading and knowledge building in inquiry learning settings in primary education. Earlier, she has worked at the University of Groningen as a researcher and an advisor on language education.
,
Jan Berenst
Jan Berenst is professor (retired) of Discourse & Learning at the NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences in Leeuwarden, the Netherlands. Previously, he worked as a senior lecturer and researcher at the Center for Language and Cognition of the University of Groningen. He has published, among other things, on intercultural communication, medical interaction, teacher meetings, classroom interaction, children’s conversations, literacy development and language pedagogy.
Tom Koole is professor of language and social interaction at the University of Groningen. He has used conversation analysis to investigate classroom interaction, emergency calls and health communication. He is also a visiting professor in the Health Communication Research Unit of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. His present research is concerned with the use in interaction of linguistic and embodied tokens of understanding.
and
Kees de Glopper
Kees de Glopper is professor of Speech Communication and Discourse Analysis at the University of Groningen, where he teaches courses in literacy, language education and research methodology. His research interests include literacy, interaction and learning, reading and writing education, vocabulary learning and educational technology.
Abstract
This paper examines text formulations in the interaction between peers in primary school during dialogic reading, in inquiry learning settings. In this context pupils collaboratively use information from texts to answer their research questions. The data analyzed include 25 excerpts of pupils demonstrating understanding of text. We used Conversation Analysis to analyze how pupils demonstrate their understanding by the use of text formulations, as a specific type of formulations, and how these formulations function as a bridge between the reading action and the discussion of text content. Parallel to the types of conversational formulations (gist and upshot), we found two practices of demonstrating understanding, namely (1) formulating the gist of relevant text to demonstrate literal understanding, and (2) formulating an upshot to demonstrate how the text contributes to the reading goal. Both types are used to establish shared understanding of text, but focus the discussion as well on what participants find relevant information in the text to further talk about. To reach shared understanding and to use it for next steps, both interactants need to have access to the text in some way. This study contributes to our understanding of how pupils collaboratively use text to build their knowledge.
About the authors
Maaike Pulles is a researcher at the NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences in Leeuwarden and at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Her PhD research is concerned with dialogic reading and knowledge building in inquiry learning settings in primary education. Earlier, she has worked at the University of Groningen as a researcher and an advisor on language education.
Jan Berenst is professor (retired) of Discourse & Learning at the NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences in Leeuwarden, the Netherlands. Previously, he worked as a senior lecturer and researcher at the Center for Language and Cognition of the University of Groningen. He has published, among other things, on intercultural communication, medical interaction, teacher meetings, classroom interaction, children’s conversations, literacy development and language pedagogy.
Tom Koole is professor of language and social interaction at the University of Groningen. He has used conversation analysis to investigate classroom interaction, emergency calls and health communication. He is also a visiting professor in the Health Communication Research Unit of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. His present research is concerned with the use in interaction of linguistic and embodied tokens of understanding.
Kees de Glopper is professor of Speech Communication and Discourse Analysis at the University of Groningen, where he teaches courses in literacy, language education and research methodology. His research interests include literacy, interaction and learning, reading and writing education, vocabulary learning and educational technology.
Appendix Transcription key, based on Jefferson (2004)
| text | printed text that is read aloud |
| [text | overlapping speech |
| # / ## | overlapping embodied action with an ongoing silence or utterance |
| = | break and subsequent continuation of contiguous utterances |
| (0.4) | pause (seconds) |
| (.) | micro pause (< 0.2 s) |
| . | falling intonation |
| , | continuing intonation |
| ? | rising intonation |
| ! | animated tone |
| ↑ | marked rising shift in intonation |
| o | softer than surrounding talk |
| text | emphasis |
| : | extension of the sound (0.2 s for every colon) |
| <text> | slower than surrounding talk |
| ( ) | inaudible talk |
| ((text)) | description of non-verbal actions |
References
Antaki, Charles C., Rebecca Barnes & Ivan Leudar. 2005. Diagnostic formulations in psychotherapy. Discourse Studies 7(6). 627–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605055420.Search in Google Scholar
Baraldi, Claudio. 2014. Formulations in dialogic facilitation of classroom interactions. Language and Dialogue 4(2). 234–260. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.2.04bar.Search in Google Scholar
Barnes, Rebecca. 2007. Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text & Talk 27(3). 273–296.10.1515/TEXT.2007.011Search in Google Scholar
Barton, David D. 2000. Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Bereiter, Carl. 2002. Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in 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.Search in Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2011. The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies: A Journal for Philosophy and the Social Science 34(2). 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9187-8.Search in Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 2003. Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings: A sketch. In Philip J. Glenn, Curtis D. LeBaron & Mandelbaum Jenny (eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper, 293–308. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2011. Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenzo Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 285–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013.Search in Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold & Harvey Sacks. 1970. On formal structures of practical actions. In John C. McKinney & Edward A. Tiryakian (eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments, 337–366. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Search in Google Scholar
Gee, James P. 2015. Literacy and education. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315739571Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Footing. In Forms of talk, 124–159. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1Search in Google Scholar
Gosen, Myrte, Berenst Jan & Kees de Glopper. 2015. Shared reading at kindergarten: Understanding book content through participation. Pragmatics and Society 6(3). 367–397.10.1075/ps.6.3.03gosSearch in Google Scholar
Heritage, John C. & Rod Watson. 1979. Formulations as conversational objects. In Psathas George (ed.), Everyday language. Studies in ethnomethodology, 123–162. New York: Irvington Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John C. & Rod Watson. 1980. Aspects of the properties of formulations in natural conversations: Some instances analyzed. Semiotica 30(3/4). 245–262.10.1515/semi.1980.30.3-4.245Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1985. Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for overhearing audiences. In Teun A. vn Dijk (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, 95–117. London: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.02jefSearch in Google Scholar
Johnson, Sarah J. 2017. Multimodality and footing in peer correction in reading picture books. Linguistics and Education 41. 20–34.10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.004Search in Google Scholar
Kapellidi, Charikleia. 2015. The practice of (re)formulating in classroom interaction: Some preliminary remarks. Pragmatics and Society 6(4). 565–592. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.6.4.05kap.Search in Google Scholar
Koole, Tom. 2015. Classroom interaction. In Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie & Sandel Todd (eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction, 1st edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463/wbielsi092.Search in Google Scholar
Littleton, Karen & Lucinda Kerawalla. 2012. Trajectories of inquiry learning. In Karen Littleton, Eileen Scanlon & Mike Sharples (eds.), Orchestrating inquiry learning, 31–47. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203136195-8Search in Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12010.Search in Google Scholar
Maine, Fiona. 2015. Dialogic readers: Children talking and thinking together about visual texts. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315718217Search in Google Scholar
Maten, Gert van der & Anke Nobel. 2000. Sluizen. Junior informatie 3(47). Houten: Wolters-Noordhoff.Search in Google Scholar
Maybin, Janet. 2013. What counts as reading? PIRLS, EastEnders and the man on the flying trapeze. Literacy 47(2). 59–66.10.1111/lit.12005Search in Google Scholar
Maybin, Janet & Gemma Moss. 1993. Talk about texts: Reading as a social event. Journal of Research in Reading 16(2). 138–147.10.1111/j.1467-9817.1993.tb00043.xSearch in 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.013.Search in Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Maureen & Glenn DeVoogd. 2004. Critical literacy as comprehension: Expanding reader response. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 48(1). 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.48.1.5.Search in Google Scholar
Nystrand, Martin. 2006. Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English 40(4). 392–412.10.58680/rte20065107Search in Google Scholar
O’Connor, Mary C. & Sarah Michaels. 1993. Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 24(4). 318–335.10.1525/aeq.1993.24.4.04x0063kSearch in Google Scholar
Pulles, Maaike, Frans Hiddink & Anke Herder. 2014. Taalontwikkeling door onderzoekend leren binnen thema’s [Language development through inquiry learning within themes]. MeerTaal 2(1). 14–17.Search in Google Scholar
Pulles, Maaike, Jan Berenst, Kees de Glopper & Tom Koole. 2020. Text selection proposals in dialogic reading in primary school. Pragmatics and Society 11(4). 591–614. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.17029.pul.Search in Google Scholar
Rojas-Drummond, Sylvia, Fiona Maine, Mariana Alarcón, Ana L. Trigo, Maria J. Barrea, Nancy Mazón, Vélez Maricela & Riikka Hoffman. 2017. Dialogic literacy: Talking, reading and writing among primary school children. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 12. 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.09.005.Search in Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01526.x.Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol 1. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208Search in Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack & Tanya Stivers (eds.). 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.Search in Google Scholar
Solem, Marit S. & Karianne Skovholt. 2017. Teacher formulations in classroom interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 63(1). 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1324904.Search in Google Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth & Rein Sikveland. 2016. Formulating solutions in mediation. Journal of Pragmatics 105. 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.08.006.Search in Google Scholar
Tanner, Marie, Christina Olin-Scheller & Michael Tengberg. 2017. Material texts as objects in interaction: Constraints and possibilities in relation to dialogic reading instruction. Nordic Journal of Literacy 3. 83–103.10.23865/njlr.v3.471Search in Google Scholar
Ten Have, Paul. 2007. Doing conversation analysis, 2nd ed. London: Sage.10.4135/9781849208895Search in Google Scholar
Van der Westhuizen, Gert J. 2012. Reading comprehension interaction: A conversation analysis perspective. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30(3). 361–375.10.2989/16073614.2012.739330Search in Google Scholar
Weijde van der, Daniel. 2017. Argumenteren om te leren: Het bevorderen van argumentatieve sequenties in overleg tussen kinderen in de bovenbouw. Unpublished BA Dissertation. Leeuwarden: NHL Hogeschool.Search in Google Scholar
Weiste, Elina & Anssi Peräkylä. 2013. A comparative conversation analytic study of formulations in psychoanalysis and cognitive psychotherapy. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(4). 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.839093.Search in Google Scholar
Willemsen, Annerose. 2019. The floor is yours: A conversational analytic study of teachers’ conduct facilitating whole-class discussions around texts. PhD Dissertation. Groningen: University of Groningen.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Full Length Articles
- The ‘sun’ shinning upon the ‘ever-lasting’ country: a diachronic analysis of Iranian national anthems during the 20th century
- All you need is love: metaphors of love in 1946–2016 Billboard year-end number-one songs
- Managing Latin: support and intratextual translation as mediation strategies in the history of English
- Text formulations as practices of demonstrating understanding in dialogic reading
- The intertextual nature of embedded email communication for contract negotiation activities
- Multimodal persuasive strategies in product pitches
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Full Length Articles
- The ‘sun’ shinning upon the ‘ever-lasting’ country: a diachronic analysis of Iranian national anthems during the 20th century
- All you need is love: metaphors of love in 1946–2016 Billboard year-end number-one songs
- Managing Latin: support and intratextual translation as mediation strategies in the history of English
- Text formulations as practices of demonstrating understanding in dialogic reading
- The intertextual nature of embedded email communication for contract negotiation activities
- Multimodal persuasive strategies in product pitches
