Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2011). Dialogic teaching: Talk in service of a dialogic stance....

This art icle was downloaded by: [ Maureen Boyd]On: 22 August 2011, At : 04: 38Publisher: Rout ledgeI nforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mort imer House, 37-41 Mort imer St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK

Language and EducationPublicat ion details, including inst ruct ions for authors andsubscript ion informat ion:ht tp:/ / www.tandfonline.com/ loi/ rlae20

Dialogic teaching: talk in service of adialogic stanceMaureen Pat ricia Boyd a & William C. Markarian a

a Department of Learning and Inst ruct ion, University at Buffalo,Buffalo, New York, USA

Available online: 22 Aug 2011

To cite this article: Maureen Pat ricia Boyd & William C. Markarian (2011): Dialogic teaching: talk inservice of a dialogic stance, Language and Educat ion, DOI:10.1080/ 09500782.2011.597861

To link to this article: ht tp:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 09500782.2011.597861

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE

Full terms and condit ions of use: ht tp: / / www.tandfonline.com/ page/ terms-and-condit ions

This art icle may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Anysubstant ial or systemat ic reproduct ion, re-dist r ibut ion, re-selling, loan, sub- licensing,systemat ic supply or dist r ibut ion in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representat ionthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinst ruct ions, formulae and drug doses should be independent ly verified with pr imarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, act ions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising direct ly orindirect ly in connect ion with or ar ising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlae20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2011.597861

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Language and Education

2011, 1–20, iFirst Article

Dialogic teaching: talk in service of a dialogic stance

Maureen Patricia Boyd∗ and William C. Markarian

Department of Learning and Instruction, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA

(Received 26 January 2011; final version received 7 June 2011)

We consider what it means to be a dialogic teacher as characterized by Paulo Freire andRobin Alexander, and utilizing discourse analysis, we explicate how one elementaryteacher’s talk reflects these characteristics. We provide context for and analysis of aseven-minute discussion selected as a cumulative achievement the focal nine-year-oldsare capable of after a year’s exposure to dialogic teaching. These students exploredmany authors’ stereotypical treatment of orphanages as a common setting in children’sliterature and considered how it impacted character development and the readers’ predis-position toward characters. We explore the role the teacher played to mobilize students’everyday knowledge, listen attentively as students grappled with ideas, and then anchorhis questions and comments in students’ contributions. Using talk in this way, he wasable to negotiate school knowledge, specifically literate talk, and effectively connect itto what his students already knew. We highlight the concept of dialogic stance and arguethat it is not isomorphic with the way a particular utterance is syntactically structured. Itis rather a function of how patterns of talk may open up discourse space for explorationand varied opinions, and how teacher- and student decision-making about content ispresented and discussed.

Keywords: classroom dialogue; dialogic teaching; instructional stance; questioning;elementary school education

I think most learning starts with the learners and goes from there. And so to start with theirreading logs or what they are talking about and try to expand on that and to bring other thingsinto that . . . when they say something it might be the perfect opportunity to slide somethingin. (Michael, third-grade teacher)

Somewhere in central New York, in June, in the midst of a third-grade classroom,

Michael sits surrounded by his students. He had started this day like all the others during

this school year – in Morning Meeting – asking his nine-year-old students about the books

they have read outside of school and have written about in their reading logs. One of

the most formidable tools Michael employs in his classroom is his understanding of talk.

However, those familiar with talk theory might be surprised if, when eavesdropping on

this particular conversation, they would hear Michael ask closed questions such as, ‘So

there’s an orphanage involved?’ and a student’s subsequent minimal response, ‘Yeah, uh

huh.’ ‘Closed’ questions, after all, are those that demand little elaboration on a student’s

part, just as ‘Yeah, uh huh’ suggests. For this reason, they have grown synonymous with

poor, not extraordinary, teacher practice.

∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0950-0782 print / ISSN 1747-7581 online

C© 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2011.597861

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1

2 M.P. Boyd and W.C. Markarian

However, we would argue that Michael is a dialogic teacher and as such uses talk

effectively. In his defense, it is completely inappropriate to evaluate a turn of talk so

completely decontextualized as the one above, let alone hold it up as a model for all

of Michael’s use of talk. But this particular exchange between Michael and the student,

structurally in the form of a closed question and a succinct answer, breaks expectations.

It initiated a seven-minute conversation that covered 86 turns of talk and opened up an

intertextual discussion about many authors’ stereotypical treatment of orphanages as a

common setting and considered how it impacts character development and the readers’

predisposition toward characters. Fourteen third-grade students (three quarters of the class)

and their teacher reference nine books (all above a fourth-grade reading level), despite the

teacher’s frequent use of closed questions, inauthentic questions, and didactic statements.

In this paper, we argue that closed questions – those traditionally associated with

monologic talk – nevertheless yield elaborated and substantive student contributions in this

classroom because the teacher talk is in service of a dialogic stance. Moreover, we assert

that dialogic stance is independent from and not isomorphic with any particular language

form. Rather, a dialogic stance permeates the talk to such an extent that it informs the

illocutionary force of the talk and the discourse space. In other words, it is not just how we

say it, but also how we are predisposed to receive it.

The socio-historical patterns of talk that elucidate dialogic stance can open up discourse

space; these patterns request students to elaborate even if individual utterances do not appear

to do so. This elaborated student talk offers an attentive dialogic teacher the everyday

language and knowledge his students currently value and find relevant that he in turn

can purposefully link with the language and knowledge the school values. Adopting a

dialogic stance thus affords the teacher more opportunities to negotiate as a more informed

‘knowledgeable other’. Therefore, it is not the overt structures of Michael’s talk but the

purposes of his and his students’ talk in the classroom that demonstrate his pedagogical

talk expertise.

Herein, we illustrate the concept of dialogic stance and explicate how one elementary

teacher reflects the characteristics of a dialogic teacher as characterized by Paulo Freire

and Robin Alexander. Through a close discourse analysis of one seven-minute extended

conversation, we consider:

RQ1: In what ways do Michael’s patterns of talk reflect the characteristics that Freire andAlexander consider as those of a dialogic teacher and a dialogic stance?

RQ2: In what ways does Michael negotiate the everyday language of his students andthe formal language of schooling – specifically the literate talk that he is asking them tolearn?

Theoretical review

It has been suggested that teaching is a chain of decision-making, and the degree to which

the teacher or students get to make the decisions frames the parameters for instructional

stance (e.g. the open question is associated with student contributions and a collaborative

reasoning stance; Chinn, Anderson, and Waggoner 2001). Certainly, a teacher’s instructional

stance, or teaching ontology, has coherent, recognizable interactional patterns informing

how students read the moment and respond, and determining the degree to which decision-

making reflects joint purposes (Boyd forthcoming; Renshaw 2004). Instructional stance is

made visible in the patterns of talk – turn-taking norms, types of questioning and response,

and time students have to talk; the subject of talk – who gets to select and control it and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1

Language and Education 3

who has interpretive authority; and illocutionary force – the degree to which the intentions

of the speaker are taken up into the stream of discourse (Linell and Markova 1993).

Student discussion stance to literature has been associated with particular instructional

decisions. In their study of two fourth-grade discussion patterns (recitational and collabo-

rative reasoning), Chinn and colleagues describe three stances for discussing literature. The

first two are based on Louise Rosenblatt’s (1978) transactional theory of reading, which

asserts meaning-making is dialogic – in-the-moment understanding in anticipation of and

in response to the reader and text. An efferent stance is adopted when students read for

information, and an aesthetic stance is adopted when students inhale the narrative as a

‘lived-through experience’. The third stance described is critical-analytic, a stance adopted

by ‘educated adults’ and associated with high-level comprehension. The decisions a teacher

makes are key to shaping these student stances, as for example, expectations for particular

types of answers are signaled in teacher questions. Building on these three stances, Soter and

colleagues (2008) identified teacher discourse features (authentic questions, questions that

elicit high-level thinking, questions that elicit extra-textual connections, uptake) to serve

as proximal indicators of students’ high-level comprehension, as evinced by students’

elaborated explanations and exploratory talk.

Much discussion regarding effective teacher talk today suggests that the function of

talk can be determined by its form (Nystrand 2006; Soter et al. 2008). But this increasingly

inflexible belief in and adherence to the privileging of one linguistic syntax over another –

such as teachers employing ‘open’ questions over ‘closed’ questions – has demonized the

research regarding the effectiveness of teacher talk. In this paper, we elucidate how our focal

teacher successfully uses a variety of talk structures and patterns of use – including those

with closed questions and didactic statements – in service of a dialogic stance that guides

students to think and talk in elaborated, authoritative, and analytic ways. In other words,

Michael demonstrates that it is the perceived function of the talk in a situated, social context,

not its decontextualized form, that determines its effectiveness. Form follows function, not

the other way around.

Over at least the past 40 years, researchers of classroom and teacher talk (e.g. Barnes,

Britton, and Torbe 1969; Cazden 2001; Dillon 1984; Nystrand et al. 1997; Wells 1999)

have come to note that classroom talk is marked by a domination of teachers talking

and students listening, and teachers posing questions in ways that seem to perpetuate

these imbalances. For example, much has been noted of teachers who favor transmitting

knowledge via monologic lecture and who ask questions in IRE (teacher Initiation, student

Response, teacher Evaluation) or IRF (teacher Initiation, student Response, teacher Follow

up) recitational format. In this monologic stance, questions that are closed and inauthentic

function only to succinctly display how well a student’s recall aligns itself with the message

the teacher is disseminating, how well he or she can ‘perform’ knowing.

Recent research (Alexander 2006; Aukerman 2007; Boyd and Rubin 2002, 2006;

Kachur and Pendergast 1997; Linell and Markova 1993; Mercer and Littleton 2007) has

come to recognize, however, that the outward appearances of particular instances of talk

structures in a classroom are not necessarily the best indicators of the underlying dynamic

of the learning of the classroom (e.g. instructional stance or student talk predispositions

shaped by socio-historic patterns of classroom talk). It is, in other words, feasible for

a question to appear ‘dialogic’ yet in the service of a teacher with a monologic stance;

the responses to such questions will function monologically – in other words, such a

teacher may use an open, authentic question, utilizing cues such as ‘why’ and ‘do you

believe’, but only truly care about how closely the student’s response aligns with some

school-sanctioned or teacher-predetermined position. Conversely, it is just as feasible for a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


teacher to ask an outwardly ‘bad’, closed question that is functioning within the context of

a dialogic classroom and in the service of a dialogic teacher stance. Such a question in such

a context, despite its outward appearances, may nevertheless produce extended discussion,

elaborated talk, and a joint construction of knowledge among class participants.

Thus, it is clear that the way talk is syntactically structured is not the significant measure

of how well it will produce dialogically oriented classrooms. Certainly, the surface values

of talk mediate and shape how and what is learned – but other forces must also be at

work, shaping what talk means and does within the context of the classroom. We argue

that socio-historical patterns of delivery, shaped by the epistemological and ontological

stance of the teacher, inform and predispose students as to what kind of response and

classroom interaction is valued and expected. Students can hear talk structures vocalized,

but they determine the meaning of a turn of talk as they heed other unspoken forces, such

as illocutionary force of the speaker and the context as they are understood through socio-

historical classroom patterns. Thus, when we examine a conversational turn, we must also

be mindful of its responsive and initiatory relationship to what has been said and what is

said next (Bakhtin 1981; Linell and Markova 1993). To engender student talk that is truly

dialogic – that is elaborated and engaged as well as contingent and reflective of the talk

of others in the class – two theorists have proposed similar ideas regarding the hallmark

qualities of a dialogic classroom.

The first is by Paulo Freire, who summarized his beliefs regarding pedagogical stance in

an interview with Ira Shor. Freire (Shor and Freire 1987) technically called this a ‘liberating

teaching’ in a ‘dialogical class’. The dialogic teacher, according to Freire, acts as follows:

(1) Modulates his tone of voice to conversational tones rather than didactic.

(2) Listens intently when students are speaking and asks other students to do the same.

(3) Does not begin a reply after the student ends her or his first sentence, but asks the

student to say more about the question.

(4) Delays a response when students request the teacher’s opinion, instead defers to

other student opinions.

(5) Starts next class with answers to questions/comments he could not answer during

the current class.

(6) Signals (as in Step 5) the importance of student statements.

(7) Uses humor.

In 2006, Robin Alexander similarly outlined the qualities of dialogic teaching. He

named the following five talk descriptors as indicators of a dialogic classroom:

Collective: Teachers and children address learning tasks together whether as a group or as aclass, rather than in isolation.

Reciprocal: Teachers and children listen to each other, share ideas and consider alternative.

Supportive: Children articulate their ideas freely, without fear of embarrassment over ‘wrong’answers; and they help each other to reach common understandings.

Cumulative: Teachers and children build on their own and each other’s ideas and chain themin coherent lines of thinking and enquiry.

Purposeful: Teachers plan and facilitate dialogic teaching with particular educational goals inview. (2006, 28)

It is important to note that in neither Freire’s nor Alexander’s work is a specific type

of speech syntax required. Instead, both emphasize a teacher’s generalized stance over

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


a scripted type of talk. Alexander, in fact, argued that a teacher should draw instead

on a ‘repertoire’ of talk strategies so long as these strategies worked in the service of

establishing and maintaining a dialogic classroom. Indeed, to limit a teacher to a certain

type of questioning pattern would be ‘too simplistic’ (Mercer and Littleton 2007, 35).

There are many arguments currently being made for why a dialogic approach is more

effective than the traditional monologic approach that is still dominant in today’s class-

rooms; the majority of these arguments cite improvements to student critical thinking and

retention. In the UK, ‘dialogic teaching’ has become a curriculum goal (Fisher 2011) and

dialogue in the classroom is viewed as an explicit educational end in itself (Mercer et al.

2010). This growing body of literature on dialogic teaching (Alexander 2006) ascribes var-

ied labels: dialogic instruction (Nystrand et al. 1997), dialogic learning (van der Linden and

Renshaw 2004), dialogic pedagogy (Skidmore 2000) and dialogic inquiry (Wells 2001), but

the consistent message is for supportive and substantive opportunities for engaged talk with

content – to explore, challenge, reconsider, and extend ideas in ways that enhance student

learning. What distinguishes dialogic teaching is its orientation to knowledge and knowing

(Wells 2006). The focus is on students’ growing understanding – growing knowing – as they

bring their current experience-based knowing to bear on school-sanctioned contexts and

ideas such as literature provides and engage in literate discourse practices. Complementary

classroom research in the US explicitly argues for student purposes, judgements, and con-

tributions to be woven into real-time instructional decision-making and talk. For example,

we see this in Aukerman’s (2007) explication of a shared evaluative pedagogy (SHEP) in

a fifth-grade setting, and Boyd and Galda’s (2011) framework for real talk emanating from

their study of four elementary classrooms. This paper adds to this body of literature as

we argue that central to the notion of dialogic teaching is a dialogic stance that is evident

through both patterns of instructional delivery and purposeful decisions about how content

is presented and discussed. That is, teachers adopting a dialogic stance encourage students

to articulate what they know and position them to have interpretive authority. There is

purposeful negotiation of the discourse of ‘everyday’ knowledge that students bring with

them to school, and then when students are readied, there is connection to the discourse

of formal education, ‘school’ knowledge. Along these lines, a key mutual component to

both Freire’s and Alexander’s dialogic teaching is that the teacher is necessarily a sincere

listener. In Figure 1, we represent how both Freire’s and Alexander’s characteristics of

dialogic teaching are grounded in teacher listening.

We would argue that attentive listening is a necessary prerequisite for instructional

dialogue and discussion. Good teachers listen to, follow, and support student ideas, purposes,

and lines of reasoning. If they listen to and outwardly value students’ real voices – the

everyday discourses and experiences students bring to class – in order to better understand

how everyday and school learning come together and heed illocutionary force – uptake on

the speaker’s intent (Linell and Markova 1993), they can lead students from behind and

alongside, harnessing real talk (Boyd and Galda 2011) toward insightful, educational, and

educated discussions (Rubin 2011; Wells and Chang-Wells 1992). Negotiating unfolding

talk is ‘an artful performance rather than a prescribed technique’ as the teacher must

‘follow and lead, to be responsive and directive’ and must ‘require both independence

and receptiveness’ from students (Renshaw 2004, 7). Classroom talk patterns illuminate

how teachers can support students as they learn through talking: to talk-to-know, to connect

information to real contexts, and to reason, grapple, and argue together. But unpacking these

patterns requires more than a focus on decontextualized form or content; it necessitates

an understanding of decisions to mobilize (or foreclose) students’ everyday knowledge,

the knowledge they bring with them to school, in ways that ready them conceptually to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


Figure 1. Dialogic teaching as characterized by Freire and Alexander.

understand, acquire, and eventually apply the school knowledge a teacher is responsible for

teaching them.

Many talk theorists (e.g. Barnes, Britton, and Torbe 1969; Bruner 1986; Gee 1996;

Moll et al. 1992) have made clear distinctions between this knowledge a student brings to

school and the knowledge a student is asked to learn by the school. For Vygotsky (1986,

1998), a teacher’s task is to negotiate a path between a student’s everyday knowledge – what

a student knows on his or her own (spontaneous concepts), and the school knowledge –

what he or she is required to know for academic success (scientific concepts). The teacher

(or the more knowledgeable other) mediates this path, as working within the student’s

zone of proximal development (ZPD), he or she negotiates between these two types of

knowledge. This is now commonly referred to as scaffolding (cf. Aukerman 2007; Mercer

and Littleton 2007; Renshaw 2004). But for Vygotsky, a student could only be capable

of truly understanding and acquiring school knowledge when such knowledge is closely

aligned to similar conceptual understandings over which the student already held control

(grammar, experience with characters in novels) in his or her everyday knowledge. In

other words, a successful ‘scaffold’ is built from the conceptual knowledge and language a

student already possesses; it utilizes general knowledge, school knowledge, and language

already controlled within the student’s everyday knowledge and guides them toward a path

that leads to appropriating this new ‘school knowledge’ through its careful, purposeful

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


association with what the student already knows. In fact, Dyson (1990) and Aukerman

(2007) prefer the term ‘guided participation’ to scaffolding as they too argue that the

building blocks of the scaffold must come from the student. A teacher’s job is to discern

what those blocks are and cull them together for future association with school knowledge

and to cultivate intersubjectivity (Dyson 1990) and practice illocutionary uptake. In other

words, joint purpose, an awareness of what the other is doing, and contingent responding

are essential ingredients of a dialogic instructional stance.

Herein lies an important distinction. A monologic stance upholds the primacy of school

language often through rote utilization of terminology (consider Freire’s banking metaphor).

This develops little conceptual awareness for the teacher’s students and fails to explicitly

make meaningful connections with what those students already know (foreknowledge) and

what they are being asked to learn. In this case, the teacher’s scaffold is teacher imposed

and remains detached from the edifice of a student’s everyday knowledge, and is therefore

less effective in supporting student-internalized construction of real concepts. The dan-

ger in utilizing only top-down approaches is that if the student is left only with shallow

pseudo-concepts that are not further developed, these pseudo-concepts may be quickly

pruned from memory like neurons lacking synaptic connections. However, if the scaf-

fold is anchored in student foreknowledge and co-constructed with student contribution,

a teacher, and classroom talk, it can offer guided participation toward exploring, ventril-

oquating, rehearsing, and more successfully appropriating the language and constructs of

schooling.

What makes a dialogic stance so powerful, then, is that by listening and providing

space for student voices, the teacher can have far greater awareness of his or her students’

everyday knowledge, and this awareness may allow him or her (through his or her talk) to

harness, scaffold, and guide the foreknowledge required for a particular lesson much more

effectively. A major distinguishing feature between teachers with a monologic stance and

teachers with a dialogic stance lies in this. A teacher adopting a monologic stance expects

that the transference of ideas is merely a matter of the student listening (receiving) and

takes as a priori that if a student listens carefully enough to the dissemination of school

knowledge, he or she should be able understand, retain, and apply what the teacher has

transmitted. There is limited expectation that the student might provide feedback on how

accessible the transmission was or that the teacher might adapt what is being transmitted.

Failure in this system comes when the student simply has not listened well enough.

Conversely, a teacher adopting a dialogic stance adds the onus of listening on himself or

herself and assumes that a student’s lack of comprehension is more often related to a student’s

inability to comprehend what he or she has heard, not that he or she has not physically heard

or even remembered the teacher’s message. A dialogic teacher considers that this lack of

comprehension could be a result of poor connectivity between the conceptual awareness a

student currently has in his or her everyday knowledge and the school knowledge a teacher

is asking the student to learn. Rather than telling the student to listen ‘harder’, teachers

with a dialogic stance will try to listen better and seek out more appropriate foreknowledge

in their students in order to offer more meaningful and lasting connections between what a

student knows and what he or she is ‘coming to know’.

When we examine how Michael uses talk during Morning Meeting talk about books,

we see that the profile of a dialogic teacher is complex, principled, and context dependent.

Michael’s talk is at times superficially monologic and closed, but nevertheless, he stimulates

the very embodiment of a dialogic classroom, cultivating students’ foreknowledge to readily

receive school knowledge and dispositions. He negotiates between the everyday knowledge

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


students bring with them from home and the knowledge they are expected to learn and value

at school. What unfolds is a talk of considerable complexity and substance as conversants

exchange roles of listener and speaker.

Methods

We employed a micro-analysis of classroom discourse, closely examining a short, purpose-

fully selected excerpt to allow for adequate contextual detail and in order to look beyond

the surface structures of talk to elucidate what actually occurred in terms of teaching and

learning in the moment. While a short excerpt cannot illustrate the full repertoire of teaching

practices and techniques that characterize dialogic teaching, micro-analysis can unpack the

culminating and richly embedded complexity of densely layered communications while ex-

plicating both the linguistic characteristics of dialogic teaching and the particular discourse

moves that instantiate instructional stance.

We purposefully selected this seven-minute talk about orphanages from the reading log

component of the June 7 Morning Meeting not as representative of a seven-minute slice

of class but to illustrate a cumulative achievement these students are capable of after a

year’s exposure to dialogic stance. This excerpt is an intact ‘time on floor’ for one of the

four students scheduled for that day. As such, it is remarkable, as it almost entirely consists

of a collaborative, though not entirely harmonious, extended topical exchange involving

14 students. While as a group they move toward a co-constructed consensus, dissenting

voices and even student challenges are a customary part of the process (Linell and Markova

1993; Renshaw 2004). During this shared learning moment, these nine-year-olds employ

literate terms and display thinking in an authoritative and analytic way as they discuss

a sophisticated literacy construct with ease. These seven minutes were also selected to

showcase instructional in-the-moment, contingent decision-making. This teacher converts

a less than auspicious beginning to this focal reading log share into an engaged, collective,

substantive discussion during which students activate foreknowledge and apply conceptual

knowledge, and together they function as a literate community. In another context with a

different class history, Michael’s monologic talk structures might have shut down student

participation. Thus, this excerpt was also selected to demonstrate the critical importance

of interpreting utterance function in relation to preceding and subsequent responses and

across the socio-historical patterns of talk, and not limiting interpretation to surface syntactic

features (Bakhtin 1981; Linell and Markova 1993).

The unit of analysis for the micro-analysis is the conversational turn of talk (TOT). Each

turn of talk was coded for speaker and communicative function (e.g. types of questioning,

revoicing, prompting, didactic statements, explication; see Cazden 2001; Chinn et al. 2001;

Nystrand 1997). Sometimes, turns of talk were coded for more than one category as we

considered the Janus-like functions of a turn to respond and initiate. For example, TOT 3 –

‘Pass it over. Why is it that you don’t want us to read it?’ – is coded as a directive statement

in response to Teresa’s reluctance, and an initiating authentic question and an open question.

Tables 1 and 2 provide full coding. Charts and annotated transcripts supported analysis.

Summary descriptive statistics (timing and number of utterances, ratio of teacher talks

and student talks), turn-taking sequences, and positioning of interpretive authority added

to the profile of the seven-minute exchange. As context for this seven-minute exchange,

we describe the third-grade classroom community, the role student talk about books plays

across literacy events in this elementary classroom, and the reading log component of the

daily Morning Meeting literacy event.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


Context

Our focal classroom is a mainstream third-grade classroom (eight- and nine-year-olds) in

Hillyside Elementary (a pseudonym, as are all names in this study), a small college town

in central New York state. There were 10 boys and eight girls; over half of the students had

at least one parent born in a country outside of the US. While their socio-economic status

(SES) ranged widely, most families were associated with the local university and valued

schooling. Their teacher, Michael Bain, had been teaching for over 31 years. Maureen, the

first author, informally observed this class for a year and then formally gathered data for

just over three weeks in June, during which she took field notes, interviewed Michael, and

audio- and video-taped, and then transcribed, the classroom talk during two daily literacy

events: the Morning Meeting and the Chapter Book Read-Aloud (for further details on the

read-aloud event, see Boyd and Devennie 2009). Reading and talking about books were

established and honored daily practices in Michael’s classroom. During data collection, it

was common to see students finish an activity and, without prompting, pull out a novel and

read until further guidance was given. (See Appendix 1 detailing the nine books and one

movie referenced in the focal seven-minute excerpt.)

This third-grade classroom community started each morning with Morning Meeting.

Typically, this lasted 20–30 minutes, during which Michael took care of housekeeping (e.g.

student notes from home) and made time for any special sharing of home events. But the

defining structure of Morning Meeting in this classroom was the sharing of reading logs

written at home about books the students were reading independently. At the very beginning

of the school year, Michael had assigned particular days for each student when the log would

be due. On any particular day, the same three or four students thus shared their reading logs.

Michael and the rest of the class took active listening roles and freely asked questions from

the individual students, who were positioned to have interpretative authority since he or she

had read the focal text. Michael then collected the student’s exercise book containing the

reading logs and responded in writing before handing it back the next morning. Routines

were well established, and as a classroom community, members were familiar with and

appeared interested in the books individual students were reading independently. It was

common practice for students to loan books to other students and Michael.

In interviews, Michael explicitly expressed the purposefulness of his time spent in

exploratory talk about books during Morning Meeting read-aloud time: ‘It’s the books, and

it’s a way of communicating, it’s a way of sharing, and to then continue that sharing from

the author to the reader to other kids is just a really exciting thing’. He was also conscious

of his role to provide concrete feedback and support students’ identities as readers and, by

extension, their willingness to explore and share: ‘If they are getting feedback from the

other kids and from me that they’re good readers, they’re going to want to do it more’.

Thus, he viewed his role as listener as critical:

I need to make sure that I’m listening ‘cause I think a lot of what I do is a reaction to what thekids are saying . . . So I have to really listen and I hope the kids are really listening too and theyreally are especially when you notice that, you know, when somebody starts saying somethingand another kids says ‘Ohhh! Me too!’ or ‘I read that book!’ and sometimes it’s so wonderful‘cause the enthusiasm really gets so high that, you know, you got kids like being rude all overthe place because they got to get their two cents in, which is kind of a nice problem.

Furthermore, Michael understood how literate talk leads to literate writing: ‘If we talk

about antagonists one day the next week’s letters [reading logs] will all have antagonists

mentioned in them or a lot of them often will . . . it’s often a good way to know whether that

idea got through’. And getting the idea through – deep conceptual understanding – was a

purposeful learning objective in this classroom.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


Analysis

In this seven-minute exchange (seven minutes, one second; see Appendix 2 for the complete

transcript), there were 86 turns of talk, about half (38 or 44%) of which were made by

Michael, the teacher. Fourteen out of the 18 students in this class also participated. To

be sure, sharing the floor with students for almost half the time is not too dissimilar to

traditional classrooms – Michael is involved in most exchanges (Applebee et al. 2003;

Cazden 2001), so we look at indicators such as decision-making for patterns of talk (turn-

taking norms, types of questioning and response) and content of talk (determining scope of

talk, positioning for interpretive authority, illocutionary uptake) to illuminate instructional

stance.

One of the four students sharing their reading logs during the June 7 Morning Meeting

was Teresa. We look closely at Teresa’s ‘time on floor’, beginning with what could have

been an awkward teaching moment: Teresa did not want to read her journal to the class nor

did she want Michael to read it out loud (a service he offers when students do not want to

read). Michael paused to scan Teresa’s reading log and provide a short running commentary,

‘taking a break from The Witches . . .’ Teresa interjected to explain she ‘got back to Molly

Moon’, possibly sanctioning Michael’s reading on. Michael continued, positioning Teresa

as the authority, ‘so there’s an orphanage involved?’ [Teresa had written in her journal

that ‘[Molly] lives in an orphanage’ and that ‘the orphanage was a bad place back then’.]

Michael apparently recognized this as a powerful, recurring theme in the literature with

which his students were familiar and commented out loud to the class:

Orphanages seem to be a place where authors like to put kids when they . . . and they usuallyare terrible places and everybody’s mean to them and that sort of thing. (Michael, TOT 12)

This observation, emerging from Teresa’s reading log, sets up an extended collaborative

conversation where students reference independent and shared readings involving orphans

and orphanages as they explore how orphanages are more than local settings as they color

expectations of how characters will develop and their placement is part of author craft.

When we closely examine the unfolding talk, we have a basis from which to then discuss

in what ways Michael’s patterns of talk reflect the characteristics of a dialogic classroom

(RQ1) and in what ways he negotiates between students’ everyday knowledge and the

school knowledge – the literate talk – he is asking these third graders to learn (RQ2).

Examining the talk

Table 1 provides summary statistics of Michael’s language. A complete transcript is included

at the end of this paper (Appendix 2). In his 38 turns of talk, Michael actually asks a

total of eight closed questions and two inauthentic questions and makes six somewhat

extended didactic statements and a rebuttal versus only three questions we might typically

designate ‘open’ and four authentic questions. Research has long aligned these statistics

with monological exchanges doomed to limiting student participation to nothing more than

mechanical recitation of ‘correct’ answers, answers that demonstrate they were listening

and recalling by rote while their teacher was disseminating information (see, e.g., Cazden

2001; Nystrand et al. 1997).

As we would expect, Michael’s closed questions do indeed often meet with succinct

one or two phrases in response. In addition to our opening example of a closed question,

‘So there’s an orphanage involved?’ (TOT 9), Michael asks several ‘treasure hunt’ closed

questions including, ‘Does anybody know anyone who was in an orphanage in a book they

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


Table 1. Analysis of teacher (Michael) language.

Code Explication Turn(s) of talk Frequency

Closed questions Closed questions technically seek a succinct,specific response.

9, 14, 17, 20,27, 37, 39,50

8

Direct speakernominations

Direct speaker nominations occur when ateacher names a particular student to takethe next turn of talk.

14, 17, 20, 41,56, 67, 80

7

Didacticstatements

Didactic statements are teacher talk designedto deliver direct instruction on a particulartopic, often part of school-sanctionedknowledge.

12, 30, 34, 67,69, 86

6

Revoicing ofstudent language

Revoicing of student language occurs when ateacher echoes either directly or indirectlywhat a student has offered in the previousturn of talk.

17, 52, 59, 67,69, 78

6

Feedback Feedback comments are genuinely engagedwith a student’s statement, offering theteacher’s opinion on that student’s statement.

5, 41, 63, 75,78, 82

6

Interthinking Interthinking reveals teacher language thatdirectly builds upon/extends/completes anunfinished student thought.

32, 43, 45, 47,50, 80

6

Authenticquestions

Authentic questions are moments when theteacher is genuinely unsure of the answer tohis question.

3, 71, 73 3

Open questions Open questions are those that have multipleacceptable answers and often overtly seek astudent’s opinion.

3, 65 2

Closure ofturn/topic

Closure occurs when the teacher uses his talkto abruptly end a student’s talk thread or thetalk thread in general.

14, 56, 86 3

Inauthenticquestions

Inauthentic questions are ones to which theteacher already knows the answer and isapparently seeking to evaluate studentunderstanding.

20, 65 2

Redirecting Redirecting occurs when a teacher moves theconversational focus away from one topic toanother.

25, 65 2

Tie-ins Tie-ins occur when a teacher takes student talkthat may seem off topic or tangential andmaneuvers it into the theme of the generaldiscussion.

43, 84 2

Directive statement Statements used by teacher to direct student toperform a certain classroom task.

1, 3 2

Back-channeling Listener vocalizations such as ‘Uh huh’ and‘Hmmm’ that signal listening andencouragement.

7, 54 2

Direct prompting Direct prompting occurs when a teacher beginsa statement and expects the student torespond by completing the statement.

22 1

Explications Explication occurs when the teacher tries toexplain something that may have beenunclear in a previous student turn oftalk.

52 1 (partial)

Rebuttal Responds to student challenge of teacherstatement with a counter-argument.

30 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


read?’ (TOT 14). Hussni fills in the required student blank, ‘The girl in The Thief Lord’

(TOT 15), but another student, in addition to Michael, completes the evaluative third turn

for an IRE discourse norm. Moreover, Michael’s subsequent request for another example

is supplied by Sean and evaluated with a choral student response (TOTs 17–19). A few

turns later, an unsuccessful prompt for Suzie results in elaborated response by Herbert, and

Michael’s follow-up question is answered by Suzie, who is then challenged by Herbert,

who subsequently agrees with and counters the rebuttal offered by Michael (TOTs 24–34).

We note that students’ turn-taking is not constrained by the IRE discourse structure and

that Michael’s closed questioning both is contingent on what students have contributed and

pushes for more information as he raises awareness of recognizing cues and predicting

future outcomes. After these students reason together, Michael weighs in with a didactic

statement guiding from the specific example to the general discussion about orphanages.

Clearly, Michael’s display questions are not shutting down these students. In fact, short

answers are subsequently followed by more elaborated responses, providing information

not explicitly required in order to answer Michael’s question. For example, in TOTs 37–41,

Michael begins his response to Maeve with a clearly closed question: ‘Uh huh, and how

is the orphanage for her, is it a nice place?’ At first, Maeve responds with the succinct

response we would expect – a simple ‘No’. But after Michael responds with a rhetorical

‘See?’, which in another context might indicate that their discussion is closed, Maeve then

goes on to elaborate: ‘See, they won’t let the other girls and the littler girls see each other.

And the two sisters are the littler girls.’

While Michael’s questions may be structured as closed, his students at this point of the

year appear savvy enough to read Michael’s questions as prompts, expectations for more –

not intended to curtail conversation. These third graders treat a question as a personalized

request (as opposed to a generic invitation) to share their personal knowledge about the

topic at hand – this has been their experience in Morning Meeting throughout the year, and

this predisposition, rather than the closed nature of the school-like question, shapes their

response. Michael can simply call on a student by name with an interrogative inflection,

such as ‘. . . Herbert?’ (TOT 25), and that student, in this case Herbert, will launch into an

elaborated example: ‘Uh, Sophie-e-e-e escaped from the orphanage with the help of her,

her sa . . . of her new oo, oo, traveling buddy-e-e, the BFG – the big friendly giant’ (TOT

26). These students respond as part of a community of learners who are trying to build

a more complete, communal knowledge of, in this case, how orphanages as topoi are a

repeating theme in the literature they read and how orphanages are often used to convey

a threatening environment. But it is not the case that ideas are left unchallenged. Students

feel authoritatively empowered and are willing to negotiate – from their disparate readings,

experiences, and opinions – and the resulting cacophony – ‘sometimes it is so wonderful,

cause the enthusiasm really gets so high you have kids like you know being rude all over the

place’ – is viewed as positive – Michael mediates this wonderful cacophony into dialogic

learning.

Student listen, share, and consider alternative ideas – but while this talk signals a

collaborative-reasoning stance, remember Michael’s frequent use of the ubiquitous and

oft-disparaged closed questioning. Clearly, we should not judge Michael’s talk by its decon-

textualized, outward appearance. Instead, we should examine it in context and understand

how it actually functions in regards to its interaction with student talk. Doing so, we note

(see Table 1) that Michael’s talk functions in at least the following ways: to prompt elab-

orated turns; to emphasize important student contributions by revoicing them to nominate

speakers; to tie-in seemingly tangential ideas; to redirect talk to more productive talk; to

explicate material students may not understand; to offer authentic questions with interest

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


and enthusiasm; to offer feedback; and to close turns of talk or even topics of discussion.

Moreover, Michael maintains the language of possibility, using ‘maybe’, ‘usually’, and

‘seems to be’. In short, Michael’s endorsement of loose turn-taking norms, including over-

lapping talk and students completing the evaluative third turn, and his varied use of talk

structures and purposeful listening guide classroom discussion so that it stays focused and

supportive of student thinking. None of this is possible if his responses are not contingent

upon what he has heard his student say. Michael must listen.

Examining how students’ talk functions is equally enlightening. Analysis of 48 turns

of student talk indicates that the students are not merely answering questions to appease

their teacher (see Table 2). Their most frequent functions are explanations and elaborated

statements (16 and 14 occurrences) as they explore and provide nine examples from their

own reading of how ‘orphanages’ are memetic topoi in children’s literature (without ever

utilizing the formal terminology of elements of fiction). They are clearly not ‘shut down’ by

Michael’s display questions. Instead, they respectfully challenge the veracity of peers’ and

teacher’s comments, self-nominate for turns of talk, offer tentative responses and questions,

and are willing to extend the topic to areas that may or may not be related. Their dialogue

negotiates a collaborative understanding: Herbert’s ‘Yeah, but that was the other giant’

(TOT 29) is met with Michael’s ‘Well but she didn’t know that’ and is followed up by

Herbert’s ‘But she found out . . .’ and includes dissent: Nick’s insistent ‘He’s not . . .’ and

‘No, he isn’t’ (TOT 58 and 62, respectively). In this excerpt, there is dialogue as instruction,

conversation toward consensus, and inquiry (Renshaw 2004). These nine-year-olds adopt

traditionally teacher participant roles: they initiate turns of talk (nine occurrences) and

encourage other students (TOTs 16, 19, and 36), and students and the teacher actually

engage in ‘interthinking’ (Mercer 2002), directly building off of the previous speaker’s

statement to co-create knowledge (TOTs 33, 44, 51, and 85). For example, Hannah begins:

‘Um, well, sort of with Harry Potter, ‘cause he has to go to his um . . . umm . . . his umm’

and Michael picks up where she stops with ‘Aunt and Uncle’s. But that’s not an orphanage

. . . but he’s an orphan . . . or as The BFG would say, a norphan’ (TOTs 42–45). To which

Hannah adds: ‘And um in this other book, oh yeah, in the um a, the Sunny and um and um

. . .’. And, this Michael neatly ties up with ‘Oh yes, The Bad Beginning things?’ In other

words, student talk functions to access and build a rich and socially constructed knowledge

of a particular topic.

Analysis also sheds light on how Michael negotiates the space between his students’

everyday foreknowledge and the school knowledge he hopes for them to acquire. It begins

with his willingness to listen to his students. Indeed, the very topic for this discussion

did, in fact, originate with one of his students’ observations. So, Michael seized upon this

‘orphanages’ theme and delivered it to the class for potential further discussion. Michael

was also flexible enough in his understanding of the literature that he firmed up student

connections that might have at first seemed tangential: for example, Harry Potter does not

live in an orphanage but is an (n)orphan and does initially live in a setting similar to the

stereotypical orphanage (TOTs 42–48). Michael is savvy enough to know when he is unsure

of the literature and able to move beyond student conversations that are argumentative and

for which he cannot be a helpful authority. For example, when Sam and Nick argue about

whether Mike is an orphan in Like Mike (TOTs 57–64), Michael first revoices this new topic

(TOT 59), admits he is unfamiliar with the film (TOT 63) and then gracefully maneuvers

to a new topic (TOT 65) to put an end to their bickering.

Importantly, Michael continuously draws out examples from his students of how or-

phanages can be seen as a negative stereotype that impacts characterization. Only after

most of the class has volunteered an example from their foreknowledge of their personal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


Table 2. Analysis of student language.

Code Explication Turn(s) of talk Frequency

Explanation Responses that state causal relationships. 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 35,40, 42, 55, 64,68, 74, 77, 79,81, 83

16

Elaborated responses Responses that provide more informationthan is typically required by a closedquestion. These are sententiallystructured.

2, 26, 40, 51, 53,55, 64, 66, 68,70, 74, 79, 81,83

14

Student-initiatedstatement

These are turns of talk in which the studenthas not waited for the teacher to nominatehim or her as speaker and offersinformation of his or her own volition.

6, 8, 13, 35, 42,49, 58, 60, 70

9

Succinct responses Short phrases, usually directly responding toa closed question.

15, 18, 28, 31, 38,57, 72

7

Interthinking Interthinking reveals teacher language thatdirectly builds upon/extends/completes anunfinished student thought.

33, 44, 51, 85 4

Revoicing Revoicing of student or teacher languageoccurs when a student echoes eitherdirectly or indirectly what another studentor the teacher has offered in a previousturn of talk.

24, 48, 51 3

Studentencouragement

This is student talk that functions toencourage other speakers to contribute orcontinue contributing.

16, 19, 36 3

Authentic questions Student-generated questions – assumestudents are asking questions becausethey want to know the answer – so allauthentic questions.

24, 57, 76 3

Student willingness tochallenge peers

This is student talk that challenges theveracity of what another student has said.

29, 58, 60 3

Student enthusiasm This is student back-channeling talk thatsuggests students are enthused about thecurrent conversation.

23, 46 2

Topical extensions These are student responses that fallsomewhat outside the focal topic of thediscussion but that have significant,meaningful connections to the topic(orphan but no orphanage – Harry Potter;boarding school with limited parentalcontact – The Lightning Thief ).

57, 81 2

Back-channeling Listener vocalizations such as ‘Uh huh’ and‘Hmmm’ that signal listening andencouragement.

10, 21 2

Peer rebuttal Student defends argument in face of peerchallenge.

61, 62 2

Student willingness tochallenge teacher

This is student talk that challenges theveracity of what the teacher has said.

33 1

understandings of this ‘orphanages’ theme does Michael make the move from their fore-

knowledge to the school-sanctioned language of ‘antagonist’ and ‘protagonist’ in turn

(TOT) 68, and even this turn is a revoicing of Rena’s use of ‘antagonist’ in response to

Michael’s open question: ‘So here’s a question for you – why do all these authors have their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


characters be orphans? Why would, why would that – must be something that authors think

is a good idea – what, what’s it do for a story?’ (TOT 65).

This extended collaborative conversation about orphanages is clearly a sophisticated

literacy event. It involves no less than 14 conversants, discusses in depth the prevalence of a

literary stereotype, and pulls in examples from across nine books and one movie in 86 turns

of talk, all of which occurs in a third-grade classroom of nine-year-olds. One might argue

that it should be an expected practice that students are able to nominate texts and make

connections, but expectations do not make it a common practice. Further, in this particular

case, Michael is cultivating his students’ everyday knowledge of literature to draw together

specific examples that relate to orphanages and their frequent typecasting as threatening

environments. This becomes the conceptual foreknowledge he needs in order to activate a

meaningful connection between everyday knowledge and school knowledge. Only after 66

turns of talk transpire does Michael casually broach this connection. In turn 67, he ‘slips in’

the school term antagonist as someone or something that threatens the main character. Two

turns later, he slips in the school term for this main character, protagonist, as well. Thus,

using concepts that his students already possessed in their everyday knowledge, Michael

helps his students make connections to the formal language that school sanctions for such

discussions of literature, like the one they held that day on the role of orphanages.

Discussion

This close examination of just seven minutes of Michael’s interactions with his students

provides clear evidence that, indeed, he is a dialogic teacher, despite the outward syntactical

structure of many of his questions and statements. This is because he adopts a dialogic

instructional stance.

From a Freirean perspective, we can see Michael working in the moment of discussion

to provide responses, questions, and comments that signal to his students that he is listening,

that their ideas are important, and that learning, while serious, can also be playful and fun.

However, while the informal turn-taking marks the tone as conversational, Michael is not

shy of making didactic statements and he too speaks over students in the excitement of

interthinking. He does not view this overlapping talk as problematic. Rather, by strategically

using authentic dialogue – real talk – as a guide and by allowing his students to have real

voices as they consider real purposes in real contexts, Michael listens to what his students

already know and anchors his questions and comments in their contributions, aligning

illocutionary force and educational purpose.

From an Alexandrian perspective, we can see that, overall, this discussion, and the

learning it facilitated, was collective, reciprocal, supportive, cumulative, and purposeful.

Clearly, the learning that took place in this discussion involved the great majority of students

and the teacher addressing a task together (collective). The students in Michael’s classroom

were active participants and initiators of lines of reasoning. There are a number of instances

where it is obvious that students and teacher are all listening to each other and sharing ideas

(reciprocal). The environment Michael has established is likewise obviously supportive.

We witness students comfortable enough to stretch the topic and take risks by offering

ideas that are similar but not exactly aligned with the topic or by offering material that is

similar but not a traditional example of literature (such as Harry Potter, who is an orphan

but does not live in an orphanage, or Like Mike, which is a movie not a text). The fact that

so many students were contributors to this discussion and that students and teacher were

able to complete each other’s ideas similarly points to a discussion that is cumulative and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


co-constructed. And, finally, Michael’s awareness of the potential richness of ‘orphanages’

and his ultimate ability to show that orphanages are a strong example of how we can

find stereotypical settings that set up stereotypical character types drive home the concept

that what Michael is doing is not mere chance. It is the result of the purposeful creation

of a dialogic classroom that allows these ideas to become fully accessible concepts to his

students. The scope of the discussion is contingent on the moment – it is directly in response

to Teresa’s reading log – but there is a planfulness to the literacy event and a purposefulness

to the participatory norms.

The supportive and substantive opportunities for engaged talk with content to explore,

challenge, reconsider, disagree with and extend ideas across several turns and in ways that

enhance student learning, exemplify Freire’s authentic dialogue and Alexander’s dialogic

teaching. However, as we have demonstrated, this was accomplished through many and

varied talk structures in service of a dialogic stance.

Concluding thoughts

What can seven minutes of talk tell us? Close examination of this talk elucidates the accre-

tive, embedded, and contingent nature of dialogic teaching. These focal seven minutes were

the product of an entire school year’s worth of building specific community discourse prac-

tices and expectations. Michael’s students respond to his dialogical stance (not monologic

discourse structures) as his talk has functioned all year to invite and support their contribu-

tions for developments, explorations, and applications to conceptual understandings. His

students are thus predisposed to perceive Michael’s utterances within this socio-historical

pattern of functioning. This is evident through the elaborated, authoritative, and substantive

student responses. In this classroom community, students can challenge and be challenged,

and this can be perceived not as a face-threatening act but rather as evidence of intimacy –

of trust and solidarity.

As educators, what’s striking is all that was accomplished and evinced in just seven

minutes.

References

Alexander, R.J. 2006. Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. 3rd ed. Cambridge:Dialogos.

Applebee, A.N., J.A. Langer, M. Nystrand, and A. Gamoran. 2003. Discussion-based approaches todeveloping understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and highschool English. American Educational Research Journal 40, no. 3: 685–730.

Aukerman, M. 2007. When reading it wrong is getting it right: Shared evaluation pedagogy amongstruggling fifth grader readers. Research in the Teaching of English 42, no. 1: 56–103.

Bakhtin, M.M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin. Austin, TX: Universityof Texas Press.

Barnes, D., J. Britton, and M. Torbe. 1969. Language, the learner and the school. Portsmouth, NH:Boynton/Cook.

Boyd, M. Forthcoming. Planning and realigning a lesson in response to student contributions: Inten-tions and decision-making. Elementary School Journal.

Boyd, M., and M. Devennie. 2009. Student voices and teacher choices: Selecting chapter bookread-alouds. Childhood Education 85, no. 3: 148–53.

Boyd, M., and L. Galda. 2011. Real talk in elementary schools: Effective oral language practice.New York: Guilford Press.

Boyd, M., and D. Rubin. 2002. Elaborated student talk in an elementary ESoL classroom. Researchin the Teaching of English 36, no. 4: 495–530.

Boyd, M., and D. Rubin. 2006. How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: Afunction of display questions. Journal of Literacy Research 38, no. 2: 141–69.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


Bruner, J. 1986. Actual minds, possible words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Cazden, C.B. 2001. Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. 2nd ed. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.Chinn, C., R.C. Anderson, and M.A. Waggoner. 2001. Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature

discussion. Reading Research Quarterly 36, no. 4: 378–411.Dillon, J.T. 1984. Research on questioning and discussion. Educational Leadership 42, no. 3: 50–6.Dyson, A.H. 1990. Weaving possibilities: Rethinking metaphors for early literacy development. The

Reading Teacher 44, no. 3: 202–13.Fisher, A. 2011. Creating an articulate classroom: Examining pre-service teachers’ experiences of

talk. Language and Education 25, no. 1: 33–47.Gee, J.P. 1996. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Kachur, R., and C. Pendergast. 1997. A closer look at authentic interaction: Profiles of teacher-student

talk in two classrooms. In Opening dialogue, ed. M. Nystrand, A. Gamoran, R. Kachur, and C.Prendergast, 75–88. New York: Teachers College Press.

Linell, P., and I. Markova. 1993. Acts in discourse: From monological speech acts to dialogicalinter-acts. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 23, no. 2: 173–95.

Mercer, N. 2002. The art of interthinking. Teaching Thinking 7, Spring: 8–11.Mercer, N., and K. Littleton. 2007. Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocul-

tural approach: Abingdon: Routledge.Mercer, N., P. Warwick, R. Kershner, and J. Staarman. 2010. Can the interactive whiteboard help to

provide ‘dialogic space’ for children’s collaborative activity? Language and Education 24, no. 5:367–84.

Moll, L., C. Amanti, D. Neff, and N. Gonzalez. 1992. Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using aqualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice 31, no. 1: 132–41.

Nystrand, M. 2006. Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension.Research in the Teaching of English 40, no. 4: 392–412.

Nystrand, M., A. Gamoran, R. Kachur, and C. Prendergast. 1997. Opening dialogue: Understandingthe dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Renshaw, P. 2004. Dialogic teaching, learning and instruction: Theoretical roots and analytical frame-works. In Dialogic learning: Shifting perspectives to learning, instruction, and teaching, ed.J. van der Linden and P. Renshaw, 1–15. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Rosenblatt, L. 1978. The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Rubin, D. 2011. Foreword. In Real talk in elementary classrooms: Effective oral language practice,ed. M. Boyd and L. Galda, viii–xii. New York: Guilford Press.

Shor, I., and P. Freire. 1987. What is the ‘dialogical method’ of teaching? Journal of Education 169,no. 3: 11–31.

Skidmore, D. 2000. From pedagogical dialogue to dialogical pedagogy. Language and Education 14,no. 4: 283–96.

Soter, A., I.A. Wilkinson, P.K. Murphy, L. Rudge, K. Reninger, and M. Edwards. 2008. What thediscourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal ofEducational Research 47, no. 6: 372–91.

van der Linden, J., and P. Renshaw. 2004. Dialogic learning: Shifting perspectives to learning,instruction, and teaching. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Vygotsky, L. 1986. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Vygotsky, L., ed. 1998. Academic concepts in school aged children. Oxford: Blackwell.Wells, G. 1999. Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.Wells, G. 2001. The case for dialogic inquiry. In Action, talk & text: Learning and teaching through

inquiry, ed. G. Wells, 171–94. New York: Teachers College Press.Wells, G. 2006. Monologic and dialogic discourses as mediators of education. Research in the

Teaching of English 41, no. 2: 168–75.Wells, G., and G.L. Chang-Wells. 1992. Constructing knowledge together: Classrooms as centers of

inquiry and literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinnemann.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1


Appendix 1. Children’s literature referenced in orphanage talk sequence.

Title Author ∗Reading level ∗Lexile score

1. The Witches Roald Dahl 5.5 7402. Molly Moon Georgia Byng 5.6 7703. The Thief Lord Cornelia Funke 4.9 6404. The BFG Roald Dahl 5.8 7205. The Samantha books (American Girl series) Valerie Tripp 4.1 5006. Harry Potter series (Harry Potter and the

Sorcerer’s Stone)J.K. Rowling 5.3 880

7. The Bad Beginnings Lemony Snicket 6.1 10108. The Supernaturalist Eoin Colfer 6.2 6509. The Lightning Thief Rick Riordan 4.7 740

10. Like Mike (movie) 2002 PG Movie

∗Reading level and lexile score accessed at Scholastic Book Wizard (http://bookwizard.scholastic.com/tbw/

homePage.do).

Appendix 2. ‘Orphanages’: annotated talk sequence (86 turns of talk; seven

minutes, one second).

Turn Speaker Talk (Begins at time stamp 33:17)

1. Michael Teresa? (as in ‘Teresa, may I have your journal?’)2. Teresa I don’t want anybody to read it.3. Michael Pass it over. (Hand gesture and authoritative tone. Teresa flips journal toward

him.) Why is it that you don’t want us to read it?4. Teresa Because I don’t want you to read it (giggles).5. Michael I was hoping for more specifics . . . (Pauses to read journal. Looks up and

addresses Teresa, apparently reporting what she has written him). Taking abreak from The Witches . . . (more giggles)

6. Teresa That’s because I got back to Molly Moon.7. Michael Uh huh.8. Teresa . . . like it was good.9. Michael So there’s an orphanage involved? [student sneezes] Whoa!

10. Emily Yeah, uh huh.11. Teresa Yeah, she lives in an orphanage.12. Michael Orphanages seem to be a place where authors like to put kids when they . . .

and they are usually terrible places and everybody’s mean to them and thatsort of thing.

13. Teresa Yeah, in the first book that you had like a really mean . . . (Unsolicitedresponse. He cuts her off .)

14. Michael Does anybody know anyone who was in an orphanage in a book they read?Hussni?

15. Hussni The girl in The Thief Lord.16. Maeve Oh yeah.17. Michael Uh huh, in The Thief Lord, anybody have another one, Sean?18. Sean Um Um, in the the the . . . the one that Teresa recommended Eddie Dickens

(unclear reference).19. Students Oh yeah! That’s it!20. Michael Susie, do you know anybody who’s been in an orphanage to start out?21. Suzie Umm . . .

22. Michael Somebody named Sophie . . .

23. Students OHHHHHH!

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1



minutes, one second). (Continued)


24. Teresa Named Sophie?25. Michael Maybe you haven’t read it, I’m not sure . . . okay, umm Herbert?26. Herbert Uh, Sophie-e-e-e escaped from the orphanage with the help of her, her sa . . .

of her new oo, oo, traveling buddy-e-e, the BFG – the big friendly giant.27. Michael Yeah, but when she left the orphanage, what was she thinking was gonna to

happen to her?28. Suzie She was going to be eaten, uhh!29. Herbert Yeah, but that was the other giant.30. Michael Well but she didn’t know that.31. Herbert Yeah.32. Michael She thought . . . (overtalking here)33. Herbert But she found out . . .

34. Michael Yeah, but in the mean time, just think how she felt. She really thought, like,all the way to the cave and everything, she thought that she was going to besupper or breakfast (‘breakfast’ echoed by student) or something. Yeah.That would be awful scary, I wouldn’t want to be hanging out withsomebody I thought was going to eat me (student laughter). Whoa . . .

Okay, so orphanages, you know, I imagine a lot of orphanages are reallydoing a nice job taking care of kids and things, and love the kids and arenice to them – but they certainly seem to be good places for authors to havekids be picked on and be mean to. Yes?

35. Maeve Well, in the Samantha books, Nelly, she goes to the orphanage . . .

36. Emma Oh, yeah.37. Michael Uh huh, and how is the orphanage for her, is it a nice place?38. Maeve No.39. Michael See?40. Maeve See, they won’t let the older girls who know the littler girls see each other.

And her two sisters are the littler girls.41. Michael Uh huh, that would be terrible. Okay, uh huh, Hannah?42. Hannah Um, well, sort of with Harry Potter, ‘cause he has to go to his um . . . umm

. . . (other student ‘Hogwarts’) his umm.43. Michael Aunt and Uncle’s . But that’s not an orphanage . . .

44. Hannah I know but . . .

45. Michael . . . but he’s an orphan! (with emphasis, catching on to student’s point) . . .

46. Students Yeah, yeah.47. Michael . . . or as The BFG would say, a norphan.48. Jack A norphan.49. Hannah And um in this other book, oh yeah in the um a, the Sunny and um and um . . .

50. Michael Oh yes, The Bad Beginning things?51. Hannah Yeah, bad things that’s it! [claps hands] They’re orphans . . . and they . . . and

they went to boarding school.52. Michael Mm hmm, boarding schools can be places where . . .

53. Hannah . . . and they and they went to the um . . . they went to the um the . . . shack . . .

the orphan shack.54. Michael Mmm hmm.55. Hannah That’s sorta an like orphanage but there’s only three of them in it.56. Michael Um, other orphanages that you know of? Sam?57. Sam In the movie, like . . . in the movie, Like Mike?58. Nick He’s not . . .

59. Michael In the movie Like Mike . . .

60. Nick Is he? Like Mike?61. Sam Yeah, he’s an orphan.

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1



minutes, one second). (Continued)


62. Nick No, he isn’t.63. Michael I’m not familiar with that.64. Sam (Student chatter in background about Mike) Mike’s an orphan and he like

gets these shoes . . . and kids pick on him.65. Michael (Overlaps with above with an assertive, louder tone, effectively ending the

uncertainty about Like Mike) So here’s a question for you – why do allthese authors have their, their characters be orphans? Why would . . . whywould that – must be something that authors think is a good idea – whatwhat’s it do for the story?

66. Rena It gives them like good antagonists, maybe . . .

67. Michael There might be some good antagonists at the orphanages. Okay, what else?Sean?

68. Sean Um, it it makes you feel sorry for them. And I have another book.69. Michael It it really makes you feel sorry for and and sympathetic for our hero – or the

protagonist. Okay, you know, you know, if you don’t have the parents andstuff, that seems like a really terrible thing. And so it really makes youconnect in a way um with with that character I think.

70. Sean Oh, and I have another book that that happens in.71. Michael What’s that?72. Sean The . . . The Supernaturalist.73. Michael Oh (nodding). Is it . . . Is it the same deal? The orphan, is the orphanage is a

bad place, or is it . . .

74. Sean He’s in the orphanage and they test sort of products on them that’s.75. Michael Oooo, that doesn’t seem very nice . . . Ew ohohoh (ominous voice)76. Shing They test what?77. Sean Products. They test them.78. Michael They test things. Okay. That actually, I think I know of some real stories like

that.79. Sean The, they use them as like hamsters.80. Michael Like, um, let’s see, test subjects. Yes, experimenting on them. Jack, you have

one, too?81. Jack Well, in The Lightning Thief he’s not really an orphan because his mom’s still

alive.82. Michael That would be true.83. Jack But he goes to boarding school and he never gets to see his mom.84. Michael Um hm. Kind of the same deal – like, you wouldn’t want to move away from

home and rarely see your parents, would you? There might be momentswhen you would like to do that but generally thinking (humor) . . .

85. Jack Like he sees her like once a year.86. Michael Yeah, that doesn’t sound like a good deal. So that would increase the

sympathy factor there for the character [moves to next reading journal].

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mau

reen

Boy

d] a

t 04:

38 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

1

Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2011). Dialogic teaching: Talk in service of a dialogic stance....

Documents

Transcript of Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2011). Dialogic teaching: Talk in service of a dialogic stance....