Mb

SC

a

ARAA

KPCEMM

1

dosIerldptcptri

fD

U

h0

Linguistics and Education 41 (2017) 20–34

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Linguistics and Education

jo ur nal ho me p age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / l inged

ultimodality and footing in peer correction in reading pictureooks�

arah Jean Johnson ∗

enter for Economic and Social Research, University of Southern California, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 14 March 2017ccepted 10 July 2017vailable online 19 July 2017

eywords:

a b s t r a c t

This paper is a talk-in-interaction investigation of the multimodal design of peer correction in readingpicture books. The focus is on what Erickson (1982a) calls the “double functionality” of moves involvedin engaging in a learning task, where one aspect is subject matter content (e.g., correction of a misreadword) and the second is a social relational aspect. In examining these features of children’s peer reading,Goffman’s (1981) notion of footing is applied so as to explore the diverse modalities through which

eer interactionorrectionmergent readingicroanalysisultimodality

children establish their own social order. This paper argues that by locating the achievement of readinga new word within the situated activity of reading with a peer, we are able to see children’s competenceand agency in enacting an environment for language and literacy learning. The evidence presented tosupport this argument draws into question dominant characterizations of peer talk in classroom settingsas being unproductive or impoverished.

© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

A common literacy activity in primary grade classrooms is chil-ren reading books together, and this activity is rich in the kindsf meaningful, cognitively and socially substantial interactions itpawns. The purpose of this paper is to explore these interactions.n doing so, I want to achieve two interrelated goals. The first is toxamine how children are co-constructing the learning activity ofeading with a friend. To this end, I focus on one key aspect of peerearning, that of correcting one another’s reading errors. Childreno a lot of correcting of each other, and as will be seen in the exam-les in this paper, correction helps children master skills that theeachers describe in their curricular plans as desired reading out-omes; these include, word recognition, and identification of thehonetic sounds of letters, as well as the blending of these sounds

ogether to make words or syllables. In other words, this analysiseveals how children are using correction as a resource to do themportant work of honing one another’s knowledge and compe-

� This research was supported in part by fellowships from CONNECT, a centeror research and innovation in elementary education and from the UCLA Graduateivision.∗ Correspondence to: 635 Downey Way, VPD Suite 312, Los Angeles, CA 90089,nited States.

E-mail address: s.johnson@usc.edu

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.004898-5898/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

tence in early reading skills. This finding offers a contribution toan area of research that gives considerable attention to teachercorrections (perhaps due to their pervasiveness in instruction),while saying little about how corrections function within rela-tively egalitarian peer interactions (notable exceptions are Cekaite& Björk-Willén, 2013; Evaldsson & Cekaite, 2010).

Thus, as part of this first goal—examining the interactionsthrough which peer reading is collaboratively built—I am also inter-ested in the footings (Goffman, 1981), or social relational dynamics,that arise when a child corrects a peer. We know a child does notnecessarily possess the authority to correct another that a teacherdoes. Nevertheless, as the examples in this paper demonstrate,children are highly adept at achieving multiple alignments (e.g.,egalitarian versus hierarchical) in relation to one another and arethus able to build various frames around the activity of helping(e.g., that of co-teacher and co-learner or that of play). These twodifferent foci on children’s interactions encompass what Erickson(1982a) calls the “double functionality” of moves involved in engag-ing in a learning task, where one aspect is subject matter content(e.g., correction of a misread word) and the second is a social rela-tional aspect.

My second goal is to demonstrate children’s social and cogni-

tive processes using a framework in which social interaction isconsidered an “ecosystem of mutual influence among participants”and where talk is not privileged over non-verbal action and othersemiotic media (Erickson, 2010, p. 254; see also, Goodwin, 2000).

nd Ed

Itet2caoatiewo

raf

l47

2

s1bhsonifftifttc“oo

3

m&Wn

coTafiv

aes

peer correction provides an important locus for exploring: 1) the

S.J. Johnson / Linguistics a

n this regard this work contributes to research examining mul-imodality in early childhood literacy with an interest in how anxpanded view of language might advance sociocultural learningheory (Flewitt, 2011, 2012; Wohlwend, 2009; Wolfe & Flewitt,010). As demonstrated in the examples in this paper, child-to-hild correction sequences are co-constructed not through talklone but, rather, through the mutual elaboration of diverse semi-tic resources, including, talk, spatial formations, embodied action,nd objects, such as picture books. I thus argue it is by attendingo the diversity of resources that come into play in these read-ng encounters that we develop a rich picture of how children arenacting an environment for learning—a social and cognitive world,hich is “both physical and interwoven with shared constructions

f meaning” (C. Goodwin, personal communication, 2014).To investigate multimodality and footing in the activity of cor-

ecting a peer, I carried out this study in a kindergarten classroomt a progressive private school where children are paired with ariend to read as part of an everyday literacy activity.

This paper is organized as follows: I present a review of relevantiterature (Sections 2–3) and a description of my methods (Sections–5) and data (Section 6), my analysis of data and findings (Sections–13), and a concluding discussion (Section 14).

. Repair in conversation

The present study of peer correction is informed by Conver-ation Analysts’ (CA) work on repair (Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff,979, 1992; Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977). As characterizedy Schegloff et al. (1977), repair is an interactional apparatus forandling problems in speaking, hearing or understanding, whichpeakers use to restore intersubjectivity. Correction is a sub-typef repair (Schegloff et. al., 1977), distinctive from its superordi-ate category in that correction occurs where a pedagogical issue

s at stake (Macbeth, 2004).1 In analyzing peer correction, I drawrom Schegloff et. al’s (1977) description of a ternary sequenceor repairs (or repair trajectory). The first turn is comprised of arouble source— a problematic item, or error, in the talk (or read-ng, as examined in this paper). The sequential organization of theollowing two turns is initiation (the recognition or marking ofhe problematic turn as repairable) followed by repair, where therouble source is potentially replaced. Within this sequence theanonical two party organization of self and other provides for afour cell grid” of possibilities: self- or other- initiation and self- orther-repair (Macbeth, 2004, p. 706). Henceforth, this sequentialrganization will be referred to as correction trajectory.

. Studies of correction in classrooms

Studies of correction in classrooms2 have focused on: the gram-

atical shape and categorical role of correction trajectories (Nassaji

Wells, 2000; Mercer, Wegerif & Dawes, 1999; van Lier, 1994;ells, 1993), as well as contingencies of action within this orga-

ization (Lee, 2007), teacher’s prosody as an index of positive or

1 The corrections examined in this study are notable (and differ from repairs inonversation) in that the problematic word is visible on the page. (Only correctionsf a peer’s reading are included in the data set (thus excluding conversational repair).his, however, does not necessarily eliminate the issue of ambiguity in what countss an error, as a child’s reading can be technically correct but not good. Data, in fact,or this study provide instances of children correcting one another on pronunciation,ntonation (such as rising intonation on a interrogative sentence) and proper readingoice (Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2005).2 I am limiting this review to studies that take an interactional perspective to

nalysis of correction in classrooms. This excludes a large body of research thatxamines how correction influences learning, particularly in second language acqui-ition (Bitchener, 2008; Havranek, 2002; Markee, 1994).

ucation 41 (2017) 20–34 21

negative evaluation (Hellermann, 2003; Margutti, 2004), the kindsof interactional contexts where particular corrections occur (Jung,1999; Kasper, 1986; Seedhouse, 1999; Walsh, 2006), and languageideologies and authority within correction practices (Friedman,2010; Razfar, 2006). Additional classroom studies have attendedto the relationship between conversational repair and instructionalcorrection (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2003; Mchoul, 1990; Weeks,1985) and the relevance of such a comparison (Hall, 2007; Macbeth,2011; Seedhouse, 2007). Another line of research on correction(outside of classrooms) has focused on the emergence of self-repairas part of children’s development of interactional competencies(Forrester, 2008; Forrester & Cherington, 2009; Wootton, 2007).Largely, however, research has focused on the verbal design ofcorrections. Few studies have given attention to the multimodalformation of action in correction sequences, detailing the ways inwhich embodied action, facial expression, prosody and artifacts,such as picture books, contribute to their design (Keevallik, 2010;Kääntä, 2010; Sert, 2015). Moreover, very little is known about thecorrection practices of young children (or children of any age) inthe context of classroom learning activities.

4. Correction trajectories, footing, and epistemics

To explore the holistic design of correction trajectories, I applyGoffman’s (1981, p. 128) notion of footing, or one’s “stance, or pos-ture, or projected self.” Goffman describes a change in footing as“a change in the alignment we take up to ourselves and the oth-ers present as expressed in the way we manage the productionor reception of an utterance.” Recognizing that stance taking isnot done through talk alone, but rather through the mutual elab-oration of diverse semiotic resources (Goodwin, 2010), I combineGoffman’s analysis of footing with more recent conceptions of mul-timodal action packages3 (Goodwin, 2007). Such an analysis allowsfor the exploration of how children elaborate talk with paralinguis-tic and embodied features of interaction so as to negotiate, establishand contest the local social order.

I analyze children’s footing within the jointly constructed com-municative project4 (Linell, 1998) of correcting a peer’s reading. Ihave observed that children’s corrections most often deal with thetask of producing an accountably correct word or correct phoneticletter sounds. The goal of early literacy curriculum is for children tostring these sounds and words fluently together (i.e., word recog-nition and phonetic awareness) in sentences and then paragraphs,and so on, with a conjoint interest in building the children’s abilityto comprehend the reading. Thus, in analyzing correction trajecto-ries I am interested in how they are embedded within the largerproject of accomplishing the reading activity in which children areto read books to a peer. In this way, the communicative project of

structure within and between turns of talk, and 2) the relationshipof this structure to the larger project of learning to read with a peer.

3 Goodwin (2007, p. 61) defines action packages as “the constellation of language,environment, body and action. . .the most basic semiotic fields that participants useto construct meaning and relevant action through situated interaction” (see also, DeLeón this issue, and Kyratzis, this issue).

4 Regarding communicative projects, Linell (1998, p. 218) states, “In the flow ofcognition and communication actors come to focus upon and indulge in communica-tive projects of many kinds and extensions. A communicative project aims at solvinga communicative ’problem’ of some kind; problems of establishing an interpreta-tion or a shared understanding of something “done through language” (performingacts, cf. Wittgenstein, 1958; Austin, 1962), of creating a communicative fact (thatsomething has been said, made known and possibly understood). A communicativeproblem can be understood as a coordination problem (Clark, 1996); in and throughdialogue, two, or more, people try to coordinate their mental and interpersonalactivities.”

22 S.J. Johnson / Linguistics and Education 41 (2017) 20–34

Table 1Frequency of Correction forms.

Kind of Correction Frequency Combined Frequency

Other-initiation + Self-correction 20K+ & K− (Example 3) 9K− & K− (Example 8) 11

Other-correction 38Word Search (Example 1) 36

tiotoeG2

tcusHarts

aoorItips1Sto

5

opmitpt

adrr

otes

transcripts to show gestures, facial expressions and bodily move-ments that are part of the sequential and simultaneous organizationof action (Erickson, 2010). Families gave permission to show their

7 Self-correction sequences were not included as part of the data analyzed. As

Total Corrections

I also analyze footing in terms of the alignment of the childreno one another, how they negotiate either hierarchical or egal-tarian relationships among themselves. For this analysis, I relyn past research on how hierarchical and nonhierarchical rela-ionships among children are negotiated through using a rangef sociocultural resources (e.g., directives, claims to knowledge,tc.) (Goodwin 1990, 2006; Kyratzis 2007; Kyratzis & Marx, 2001;riswold, 2007; Wohlwend, 2007; also, see Goodwin & Kyratzis,007, 2012, 2014, for reviews).

Children’s knowledge states provide another feature importanto correction trajectories.5 In its most typical cases—including thease of teacher instruction where known answer questions arebiquitous (Labov & Fanshel, 1977)—correction proposes that thepeaker knows something (k + ) that the addressee does not (k−).owever, in the case of peer correction, it is often the case that

child who produces the error (k−) solicits help from (or is cor-ected without solicitation) from another child who does not knowhe correction (k−). It is therefore consequential to lodge relevanttates of knowing within the organization of action.6

In its examination of the organization of learning in peer inter-ction, this paper builds upon C. Goodwin’s (2013, p. 17) notionf co-operative transformation zones, places where, through co-perative action, there is a “decompos(ition) and reuse” of “currentesources to create something else” (see also, Moore, this issue).n particular, I analyze the multimodal and co-operative processeshrough which children: 1) help their partner accomplish the read-ng activity, or more specifically, the sub-task of decoding a word orarts of a word (i.e., the phonetic sound of a letter) and 2) make pos-ible a variety of forms of social organization, or footings (Goffman,981), between participants (e.g., hierarchal versus egalitarian).ignificantly, these are the processes by which children accomplishhe meaningful and accountable social action and cognitive activityf helping a peer read.

. Context for the study

The examples in this paper are drawn from approximately 5 hf videotaped interactions which took place as children (ages 5–6)articipated in a partner reading activity over the course of fiveonths. Twenty-three different peer partnerships are represented

n the video. (In this corpus, three peer partnerships are taped

wo times and several children are taped working with multipleartners.) Three peer partnerships are presented as evidence inhis paper. (Data selection is described in the next section.) This

5 I do not attend to children’s skill level in this analysis. I recognize that readingbility may influence corrections. A gross observation I can make, however, from theata is that there are examples of all children (those with more and less proficienteading ability correcting their peer’s reading (and most often with the “correct”eplacement).

6 Following Goodwin (2013), I do not treat knowledge as private interior statesf an isolated individual but instead as structures that are public, constitutive fea-ures of the actions. (For an example of how knowledge states and identities arestablished, sustained, and contested as part of peer interaction in the classroom,ee Melander, 2012).

94

video corpus is part of a larger study examining how children co-construct learning environments while reading together (Johnson,2015). The setting is a kindergarten classroom at a K-6 privateschool located in southern California. Teaching across grade levelsis modeled after Dewey’s (1938/1997) ideas of experiential learn-ing, as well as the community of learners approach, which promoteschildren’s collaborative involvement with peers and adults acrossthe curriculum (see Rogoff, Turkanis & Bartlett, 2001). The twoteachers of the focal classroom are veterans with more than twentyyears of teaching experience. The literacy curriculum follows TheReading and Writing Project (Calkins, 2001).

6. Synopsis of data

Ninety-four correction sequences form the basis of the presentstudy, and are an exhaustive representation of instances of peercorrection.7 Table 1 exhibits a synopsis of the 94 corrections bytypology. I largely focus on the trajectory where a child initiates acorrection allowing the reader to self-correct. Of the 20 instances ofthese other-initiated corrections identified, 11 are instances whereneither child can read the word (as examined in Example 8). Alsoincluded in the 94 instances are word searches. These are sequenceswhere a child does not make an error but instead seeks help (orindicates the need for assistance) from a peer (36).8 These casesalso result in other-correction (see Example 1). (Self-correctioninstances that are not other-initiated are not included in the 94instances (see footnote vii)). Notably, the examples I focus on in thisanalysis do not present the most frequent trajectory, that of other-correction (38). I select these non-typical instances as they provideanalytically telling cases for examining multimodality and footingin peer correction (Merton, 1973; see also, Hornberger, 1997).

Data were transcribed according to the system developedby Jefferson and described by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson(1974, p. 731–733) (see Appendix A). All names in transcripts arepseudonyms. Frame grabs from video were incorporated in the

emerging readers, children make numerous errors reading as they search for a let-ter sound or unfamiliar word. While these efforts at “self-correcting” are certainlyimportant in reading and cognitive development, they are not of interest to thepresent analysis of peer social interaction around correction. The fact, however,that self-correction is the overwhelmingly most frequent trajectory may suggestthat children in their role as peer helpers generally are not overly exuberant in thiscapacity and allow for the reader to attempt to self-correct. Also not included in thedata set for this paper are cases where a peer does not help or is unable to help.These cases include where a child solicits help (e.g., through gaze or request) anda peer does not respond or states that he “does not know.” While not technically acorrection, some cases within such sequences might be classified as what Jefferson(2007) terms an abdicated other-correction. In most of these cases the result is that achild will self-correct (or seek adult help). I thus exclude them in the present studyto focus on cases where there is peer involvement.

8 While word searches do not involve the replacement of one item by another,they share a similar ternary structure to correction, and are thus within the samedomain.

S.J. Johnson / Linguistics and Education 41 (2017) 20–34 23

a boo

cw

7

w“rttwcgWbbrar1adctTgo(

apeYirBaad

Fig. 1. Children gathering around

hild’s image; images were not used in Example 8 as permissionas not given for this one child.

. Ethnographic context of peer reading encounters

When observing the children reading together during my field-ork, I became interested in the way they arranged their bodies in

ecological huddles” (Goffman, 1964) around the books they wereeading, pointing at and visually attending to (see also, Kyratzis,his issue). The context for these interactions is a history of prac-ice instilled by the classroom teachers, Ms. Yerevan and Ms. Peters,ho were many of the children’s teachers for multiple years. (The

lass was a combined pre-K (four to five-year-olds) and kinder-arten (five to six-year-olds) class prior to the year of this study.)hile the formal peer reading partnerships I examine in this study

egan mid-year in kindergarten, the children had been looking atooks together for some time as part of an activity called rest andead. Here children pick out books they find interesting to lookt either alone or with a friend as they relax following afternoonecess. A top pick, particularly of girls, is the book, I Spy (Marzollo,992), a themed series in which the pages are filled with colorfulnimals, letters, treasures or other objects, with corresponding rid-les that identify the objects. The children play a game where onehild or team spies an object on the page and the player(s) pointso possible suspects while requesting clues, such as color or shape.he children huddled around the book in Fig. 1 are playing thisame. In the beginning only three children are playing; however,ver a period of six minutes two more children independently joinas shown in the successive frames).

The children would gather around a favorite book during restnd read like bees swarming to a honey pot; in this huddle theyoint at and talk about objects that catch their attention. Thismbodied framework and mutual focus of attention is what Ms.erevan and Ms. Peters capitalize on in setting up the formal read-

ng activity, called just right books. Just right books is introduced byeading multiple versions of the fairytale Goldilocks and the Three

ears. The children (with the guidance of the teachers) decided that

book is just right when you like it and you can read the picturesnd most of the words. The teachers notice the moment when chil-ren are able to look at and talk about books cooperatively as part of

Fig. 2. Perry moves to sit next to Holly

k during a rest and read activity.

rest and read, and articulate this development as an important signthat they are ready to begin reading just right books with partners.

For peer reading the teachers instruct the children to sit knee-to-knee (side-by-side) with the book placed so that both the readerand her partner can see it. The reader is to use her magic finger tounderline the word being read. The teachers asked the children todo this as, for one, it helps children to track the text from left toright on a page filled with a complex array of words and pictures.Also, the magic finger creates an index for children’s joint atten-tion (Tomasello, 1995) and collaborative action on the word beingpointed at. Turn-taking rules are also explained to the children; onechild is to read her book while the other child helps, and then theyare to switch roles.

Children are held accountable to this participation frameworkwith frequent reminders. In Fig. 2, Holly and Perry are sitting acrossfrom one another. Observing these and other children’s breach ofconduct, Ms. Yerevan issues an imperative (said loudly for all chil-dren to hear): “I want you to sit knee to knee so you can see. Youneed to help your partner.” As seen in Fig. 2, Perry immediatelycomplies and scuttles on her knees to rearrange her body next toHolly.

In Ms. Yerevan’s directive, she provides an account for why chil-dren must sit knee-to- knee: They need to be able to see whattheir partner is reading so they can help. What she is commu-nicating is the educational value of the encounter; it “creates apublic structure of shared orientation within which other kinds ofsign processes, such as gesture and talk, can flourish” (Goodwin,2010, p. 110; also see De León, 2015; Kyratzis & Johnson, 2017).Arrangements with such a structure are central to dialogic theo-ries of learning, which understand cognitive development to occurthrough children’s participation, with the guidance of more compe-tent members, in the cultural practices of their community (Mercer& Howe, 2012; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1980). I now continue withan examination of these peer-reading encounters.

8. The relevance of picture books in the organization of

peer correction

In this section and the next (Section 9), I present two exam-ples which, together, demonstrate how books are an integral part

following the teacher’s directive.

24 S.J. Johnson / Linguistics and Education 41 (2017) 20–34

eer a b

oewytooeat(sP

rtabHipisb

p

Fig. 3. Perry hands her p

f reading and talking about books. This point might seem self-vident; however, analyses rarely consider the place objects haveithin the organization of human action. This is also true of anal-

ses of correction in classrooms—a setting in which text is centralo the learning of subject matter content. This tendency to ignorebjects in the environment largely can be attributed to a focusn the sequential organization of talk-in-interaction. However,qually important is the simultaneous, concurrent organization ofction—such as children talking while pointing at a word in a pic-ure book. (Researchers working outside a conversation analysisCA) framework have begun to make important advances in under-tanding the place of text in social interaction (see Scollon, 2001;ahl, 2005)).

In this first example, where Holly and Perry are preparing toead, we see the children, themselves, invoking the relevance ofhe book to the interactive organization of peer reading. As Holly isttaching the microphone to her dress, Perry gently shakes Holly’sag of books uttering, “Oka: y. Let’s read your books” (line 1).olly, who is gazing at the researcher (who is filming), does not

mmediately respond to Perry’s proposal. Perry thus repeats theroposition, “Let’s read your books,” (line 3), this time adding a bald

mperative performed with a high pitch: ‘Get them ou:::t’ (line 4). Ashe utters this directive she simultaneously pulls a book from theag and presents it to Holly with a smile. (This is shown in Fig. 3.)

Example 1

In this example, we see the children repeatedly introduce thelace the book will have in their activity. For instance, there are

ook (Example 1; line 7).

Perry’s multiple directives which attempt to get Holly to choose abook to read (lines 1,3 and 4), and there is her shoving of a booktowards Holly in line 7. This can also be seen in Holly’s use of thedeictic this, referencing the book her peer has handed her (line 11).

9. The interactive organization of correction in readingpicture books

The way in which picture books are incorporated into theinteractive organization of peer correction is demonstrated in thefollowing example where Edith provides the word, clown, (line 3)that her partner, Ayanshi, is unable to read.

Example 2

nd Ed

(1iboptlGiatwhoAt

sibnththcjpsr“r

tocgsoubawaar

itibipbtafpc

S.J. Johnson / Linguistics a

How is it that Edith knows to read the word clown in line 3Example 2) when it is Ayanshi’s book to read? Looking at lines

and 2, we see that Ayanshi pauses reading mid-sentence. Thisnterruption makes visible not only the unavailability of the word,ut the relevant unavailability—one that is hindering the progressf her reading (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986 pp. 55–56). During theause, as seen in image a, Ayanshi’s gesture, or magic finger, locateshe specific word on the page that is problematic: clown. As sheooks at the word, Ayanshi performs a thinking face (Goodwin &oodwin, 1986) denoting a meaningfulness to the silence: she is

nvolved in an effort to decode the word being pointed at (image). The children are taught by the teachers a number of strategieso help when they are stuck on a word—one of which is to skip theord and continue reading, as context clues in the sentence mayelp reveal what the word is. However, important to the structuref reading with a peer is the availability of another child to help.nd, indeed we see in image b that Ayanshi moves her gaze from

he page to look at Edith.The movement of Ayanshi’s gaze to her peer demonstrates: 1)

he has abandoned her attempt to decode the word, and 2) shes inviting a change in participation status. Whereas it might haveeen inappropriate for Edith to intrude earlier, her participation isow appropriate and even solicited. This information is availableo Edith who is able to see her peer pointing and hear that sheas paused reading. Notably, if the picture book were not visibleo Edith, she would be faced with the task of guessing which worder peer needs help reading. However, this is not the case. As wean see in image a and b, Edith is actively scrutinizing the pageointly with her partner (image a) and then alone (image b), as herartner’s gaze shifts to her face. Thus, by interpreting the range oftructurally different resources available to her (gesture, a pause ineading, gaze, and the picture book), Edith is able to, in her utteranceclown” in line 3, provide the specific word Ayanshi needs helpeading at the appropriate moment when her help is sought.

Likewise, it is through a similar constellation of language, theext, and embodied action that Ayanshi recognizes, with the helpf her peer, the word on the page to be clown. We observe in image

that Ayanshi’s finger continues to point at the word clown as sheazes to Edith. Simultaneous with Ayanshi’s pointing, Edith uttersoftly, with non-salient intonation, “clown” (line 3). In the absencef sentence structure, Edith’s minimized utterance is dependentpon Ayanshi’s gesture, to tie the spoken word, clown, to the wordeing pointed at in the picture book. It is through this co-operativection package (Goodwin, 2014), where Edith’s talk is combinedith Ayanshi’s gesture that the categorical structuring of clown is

ccomplished. As seen in line 4, Ayanshi looks down to the pagend recognizes the word as that just provided by her peer, andeads “clown.”

In summary, Edith could not help Ayanshi read clown by attend-ng to her peer’s reading (i.e., her talk) alone. Rather, peer correctionakes place within a complex ecology of diverse meaning mak-ng practices, where language, gesture, and objects, such as pictureooks, are brought together to build action by mutually elaborat-

ng each other (Goodwin, 2013). The intelligibility of such diverseroperties is possible because of the configuration of participants’odies which creates a shared and public focus for the organiza-ion of attention and action, indexically grounding the talk andction that occurs within that focus. In this case the object of sharedocus is the picture book which is central to the organization ofeer reading, and actions that are part of the activity, such as peerorrection.

ucation 41 (2017) 20–34 25

10. Identifying the trouble source and cooperativelyconstructing a correct reading

The accomplishment of social action requires for all parties—thespeaker and the addressee(s)—to establish reflexively the particu-lars of what others can and do know. In pedagogical encounters thisintersubjective process is of importance in achieving a commonunderstanding of the problem while also assessing the learners’ability to reach a solution. Correction trajectories, and the multi-modal phenomena that are implicated in them, provide a means toexamine the ongoing negotiation by which parties reach a commonunderstanding of what is happening and what events are projectedto happen next. This is possible because of the visibility of humanaction, such ‘that an addressee can build not just another indepen-dent action, but instead a relevant coordinated next move to whatsomebody else has just done’ (Goodwin, 2000, p. 1491).

It follows that in order to understand how children use cor-rection to modify their partner’s reading and to build variousalignments with one another, one must look beyond the correctionalone to the diversity of resources upon which children themselvesare relying in interpreting one another’s ongoing actions. The nextexample of Perry helping Holly, which I examine in Sections 10and 11, provides an illustration of how facial expression, intona-tion, embodied action and cooperatively constructed correctionsare entailed in peer apprenticeships.

In Example 3 Perry and Holly have an asymmetrical participa-tion status in that Perry is able to read the problematic word, box,(k + ) and Holly is unable to (k−). The trajectory of the correctionsequence results in Holly reading box (k− & k+ → k + & k + ):

Example 3

As seen in lines (1–5) the progressivity of Holly’s reading isinterrupted by multiple restarts and self-corrections. This cognitivestruggle is made publicly visible through her interrupted readingas well as her gesture to the text; her finger pauses beneath eachword as she slowly and falteringly reads: “Kit sat in. . .” (see lines1–4 for transcription of reading). Her gesture then passes across awith no accompanying reading, to pause and press into the pagebeneath box, the problematic word that is the trouble source for

the correction sequence in lines 7–13.

Correction-initiation is often described as “locating” or “point-ing” to the trouble source as opposed to correcting the speaker(Goodwin, 1983; Schegloff et al., 1977) and is considered a teacher-

2 nd Ed

ltiiaine(cBSq

ismlhoarb2Hathbimu

6 S.J. Johnson / Linguistics a

ike move in that it presupposes the maximum amount of ability ofhe learner (McHoul, 1990). However, a first issue in accomplish-ng such an action, which is apparent in this example, is the need todentify the problem. Here the co-operating processes of correctionnd repair are visible (Macbeth, 2011). Although Holly is still point-ng at box as she quietly utters “th” (�) (line 7), Perry initially doesot recognize box to be the trouble. It appears she instead is ori-nting to the skipped reading of a in her correction; as seen in line8), she utters “uh” (ə or the a sound). Holly, in turn, treats Perry’sorrection as a first sound, or correction-initiation, to the word box.uilding from the ə sound in Perry’s talk, she reads “in ox” (line 9).he then gazes towards Perry, and repeats with an upward-rising,uestioning intonation, “in ox,” inviting her help. (line 10).

Perry’s next actions make evident that a common understand-ng of the problem has been achieved. She now also points at box,o that both girls’ fingers are underlining the word (line 11). As sheakes this gesture she utters, “No it’s buh, buh, buh, buh,” articu-

ating the b sound with a staccato emphasis. What Perry is doingere is a taught reading strategy the teacher calls bubblegumming,r stretching out the phonetic sound of a letter so as to decoden unfamiliar word. In this case we see Perry and Holly using thiseading strategy to incrementally and cooperatively build the wordox. After bubblegumming the first letter sound, Perry pauses for.5 s to provide due consideration for Holly to self-correct. Whenolly still is unable to perform the correction, Perry calibrates herction uttering, “bo:,” elongating and emphasizing the second let-er sound o (line 12). By both incorporating the resources Perryas provided (i.e., the b and the o sounds) and examining the word

eing pointed at, Holly is able to successfully complete her reading;

n line 13 she reads “in a bo:x.” Recognizing her peer’s accomplish-ent, in the next turn Perry provides a positive evaluation in her

tterance, “nice Holly” (line 14).

ucation 41 (2017) 20–34

In brief, in this example Perry and Holly incrementally andcooperatively build the word box. This process demonstrateshow Perry—a young child who is newly acquiring reading skillsherself—is able to competently teach her peer using similarresources as might a teacher (e.g., correction-initiation (McHoul,1990)).

11. The achievement of alignment in peer correction

In Example 3, by focusing on the lexico-semantic content ofthe talk we at first see a single evaluation in the final turn ofthe sequence when Perry utters, “nice Holly” (Example 3, line 14).However, looking again, this time analyzing the embodied and pub-lic displays available to the participants themselves as they buildtheir ongoing action, we witness a dramatically different scene.We are now able to more fully appreciate the “environment ofmutual monitoring possibilities” (Goffman, 1964, p. 135) that isdefinitive of face-to-face interaction and in which corrections areembedded. Furthermore, and importantly, we are able to considerhow stance is implicated in participants’ ability to achieve variousalignments vis-a-vis one another as they participate in the eventsthat make up their phenomenological world, in this case the girls’co-participation in correcting an error.

As seen in Example 4, correction arises from a systematic processwhereby Perry first examines the indexed word being pointed at onthe page (or trouble source) in light of what Holly has read (or notread, as in the case of the word a), and then subsequently displaysher stance through paralinguistic and embodied resources. This

second turn position of evaluation is relevant to correction as thestance Perry takes determines whether a correction (or correction-initiation) is appropriate in the third turn. This organization ishighlighted in the right column of the transcript.

nd Education 41 (2017) 20–34 27

ss

s(I“ttiabcP

S.J. Johnson / Linguistics a

Example 4

Before further examining the moment-to-moment action of thisequence, it is best to first look at the outcome of this correctionequence (lines 15–17).

Whereas in teacher instruction sequence completion is con-idered to occur when the student receives a positive evaluationMehan, 1979), here we observe an altogether different trajectory.n image D of Example 4, notice how Perry couples her utterance,Nice Holly” with a pat on her partner’s back. A literal interpre-ation of what is happening here is that Perry is commenting onhe adequacy of Holly’s reading of box—a typical discursive actionn the context of teaching. However, it is apparent that Holly has

different formulation; she treats it as patronizing, as if she haseen one-upped by her peer. In her immediate next action, Hollyontests her partner’s move; she stops reading and leans towardserry while making a fist (image E).

Looking at the intonation of Perry’s evaluation, the basis forHolly’s formulation is evident. Seen in line 15, Perry’s utterance“Nice Holly” is marked, having a sharply rising pitch with the elon-gation of the i sound (jumping approximately from 100 HZ to over400 HZ), which then falls again as she softly utters “Holly.” Thecombination of her soft tone, stretched out sounds and salientpitch results in a condescending register, which—when addition-ally elaborated by the patting gesture—brings to mind a mastercongratulating an obedient puppy. Thus, in this action, Perry can beseen to be displaying her superordinate alignment to her peer. Howis such an alignment achieved (even if momentarily)? To begin to

answer this question, we must further investigate how stance—inits embodied, linguistic and paralinguistic forms—functions tomodulate or, alternatively, aggravate (Goodwin, 1983) a correctionturn.

28 S.J. Johnson / Linguistics and Education 41 (2017) 20–34

l stan

(rispeihIshiimhwst

wuhtc

c1fHcc1pt6f

Fig. 4. Perry’s embodied oppositiona

First, consider Perry’s response to Holly’s hesitant reading of Kitline 2). Initiating a correction, Perry utters “hmm: wha:t?” withising intonation on what. This questioning intonation is commonn teacher instruction; it displays uncertainty and requests that thepeaker clarify or modify what the teacher has constructed as aroblem (McHoul, 1990). However, by looking at Perry’s embodiedxpression, we see how she is taking a stance towards Holly’s read-ng. Simultaneously, as she utters, “hmm: wha:t,” she scrunches uper face (i.e., squinted eyes and flared nose) (Example 4, image a).

n the way her body expression mutually elaborates her talk, weee that she is not simply displaying uncertainty (which presentserself, as the recipient, potentially faulty in understanding) but is

nstead challenging Holly, marking her utterance as unmistakablyncorrect. (Holly does not take up this challenge and, in fact, has not

ade an error). A similar facial display is observed, coupled with aeadshake, during the pregnant pause when Holly fails to read theord a (image b, Example 4). Her grimace here seems to suggest a

tance of disbelief or possibly confusion (a more mitigated stance)owards what she sees as Holly’s trouble reading the word a.

These embodied displays escalate and after Holly reads in oxith rising intonation and a gaze towards Perry, indicating herncertainty (line 10, Example 4), Perry responds by sharply twistinger torso and head to meet Holly’s gaze, while once again displayinghe disbelief facial stance—this time while gazing at Holly (image, Example 4, and Fig. 4).

Perry’s oppositional stance is further elaborated through herorrection-initiation: “No, It’s buh, buh, buh, buh” (Example 4, line2). The turn initial position of her use of the polarity term, No,unctions to bracket the entire utterance as polar in relation toolly’s problematic turn. In her use of oppositional markers, Perry’sorrection-initiation closely resembles that of Black adolescenthildren as they participate in game or play activities (Goodwin,983). M. Goodwin describes this format as aggravated in that it dis-lays immediate and outright disaffiliation with the prior speaker’salk. This is seen in the following example from Goodwin (1983, p.62) where B begins his turn with the polarity term, UH UH, andollows in the same turn with a correction:

ce in response to her partner’s error.

While Perry’s talk resembles that of Goodwin’s adolescents inher blatant opposition of the speaker, at the same time it is mit-igated through her withholding of the correction (see Section 10,this paper). We are thus able to see how Perry constructs hybridforms of correction: She combines aggravated features (e.g., facialexpressions and oppositional turns) from the peer culture withmodulated or mitigated forms (e.g., other- initiated correction)from the adult culture, in particular teacher’s talk. (See Goodwin& Alim, 2010, for a discussion of facial expressions as stance tak-ing in adolescent girls’ arguments.) This format is seen in line 12(Example 4):

While these hybrid forms of correction are not evidenced inabundance in my data there are other examples, some of whichfollow below (see also, Example 8, lines 4 and 6 this paper). Exam-ples 5 and 6 are similar to Perry’s correction (Examples 3 and 4)in that the children format their correction-initiation (a mitigatedform of correction) using aggravated features. For example, in bothExamples 5 and 6 the children use polarity turns in the turn ini-tial position (line 2 in Example 5 and line 2 in Example 6). Theyalso, in a manner similar to the example of Perry correcting Holly,elaborate the correction with oppositional embodied expressions,in these cases, firm head shakes (line 2 in Example 5 and line 2 inExample 6).

Example 5

Example 6

S.J. Johnson / Linguistics and Education 41 (2017) 20–34 29

r’s eva

m2otBaecd4

ptacabCSytab

wicF

nmmabiH

How this happens is illustrated in Example 8 where Tommyand Amy are reading together. Tommy has selected a book with zwords to read to Amy. Looking at the title page (which shows theletter z above a photo of a zebra) he utters the z sound repeatedly.

Fig. 5. Holly contesting a pee

Example 7 (below) also demonstrates combined aggravated andodulated forms. In her uttering of the interrogative, what (line

), b challenges a’s reading. This challenge is evident in the way bverlays her verbal response with forms of prosody and amplitudehat display heightened emotional involvement (Selting, 1994).’s utterance, what, is spoken loudly and further intensified with

sharp upward gliding pitch (reaching close to 450 Hz) and anxtreme lengthening of the vowel sounds (line 2). In addition, ahallenge is communicated in b’s facial expression, which in itsisplay of incredulity closely resembles that of Perry’s in Example.

Example 7

Notably, the situation in which correction occurs in these exam-les is one of classroom learning. It is thus quite different thanhat of games or contests from which M. Goodwin’s materialsre drawn. Yet, this is not to say that competition is absent fromlassrooms. In fact, the evidence of hybrid trajectories (with theirggravated features) suggests that, in these examples, children areuilding competitive alignments as they help their peers. (See also,azden, Cox, Dickinson, Steinberg, & Stone, 1979; Steinberg, 1979;teinberg and Cazden, 1979. These authors similarly report howoung children, who are assigned to teach their peers, attempto establish authority within the teaching encounter. The authorsrgue that this asymmetry is necessary for children to gain credi-ility with their peers as the knowledgeable expert.)

Returning to the moment in which Perry pats Holly on the backe see further evidence for this point. Holly is alert to being placed

n an inferior position, and by making a fist she is opposing theategorization of being subordinate (as suggested by Perry’s pat).ig. 5 shows Holly’s defensive stance in moment-to-moment detail:

Goodwin (2015) describes the body as a canvas for the synchro-ization of action. This is seen in Holly and Perry’s choreographedovements—a fiery tango through which alignments, in just briefoments, are challenged and reversed, with Holly eventually

ssuming the helm. Perry quickly withdraws her hand from Holly’sack as Holly torques her head and shoulders towards her, hair fly-

ng wildly (Fig. 5, image a). Perry’s initial smile, as she looks up toolly (Fig. 5, image b), keys the frame that this is play (Bateson,

luation (Example 4, line 17).

2006). However, this stance evolves as Holly amplifies her actions:She leans towards Perry holding eye-to-eye contact; Perry in turndips backwards, maintaining the frame of their bodies—shoulderscatercornered towards one another and a locked eye gaze—as shewithdraws from Holly’s advance (Fig. 5 image b). Perry’s facialexpression turns gradually more submissive as she retreats: herupward turned lips form a straight line, and her crinkled, smiling,eyes widen as they gaze towards Holly with a look of consternation(Fig. 5, image c).

Notably no words are exchanged between the children duringthis brief interactional dance. By bristling her tail Holly is displayinga warning message to her partner. At the moment Perry’s submis-sive stance is achieved, Holly rearranges her body to once againassume a reading frame (as discussed in Section 7).

An underlying assumption in teacher instruction is that correc-tion serves as “an identifying task and achievement of classroomteaching” (Macbeth, 2004, p.705) within the taken-for-grantedhierarchical relational constructs of teacher and student. Asobserved in this example, children also are highly capable of iden-tifying and modifying errors in their partner’s reading. However,more so than teachers, peers must navigate a delicate interac-tional terrain. Relational roles are not clearly delineated but rathernegotiated within co-operative transformation zones (Goodwin,2013) through which children demonstrate their alignment or non-alignment toward another’s actions through moment-to-momentinteraction and in doing so transform the immediate social order.

12. Flexible footing in k− and k− peer partnerships

In the example of Perry helping Holly, one child clearly knowshow to read the problematic word and one child does not. Whathappens when both peers encounter an unfamiliar word? Thereare instances in the data where a child is unable to help her peerread a new word and they either abandon the project or they seekadult help. There are more cases, however, where such peers areable to cooperatively discover the word. Interestingly, this feat isaccomplished using strikingly similar resources as we examined inthe case of Holly and Perry: turn-by-turn the children progressivelyand cooperatively build the word by parsing it into parts. However,in this case, the correction is unknown to both parties (k− and k−)and is thus not intentionally being withheld.

9

9 I transcribe the relevant multimodal features of Example 8 using text rather thanimages to comply with IRB requirements.

3 nd Ed

Alaal

zrh

pt

Tbesd“zatuota(

iqieom

tac

0 S.J. Johnson / Linguistics a

my enthusiastically calls out “z for Ze:: bra:::” with an exaggeratedengthening of the vowels. Opening the book to the first page, whichlso pictures a zebra, Tommy picks up Amy’s prosody and makes it

second, also uttering “Ze: bra:::,” while looking up to Amy with aarge smile.

This shared involvement in reading continues. Tommy repeatsebra, this time without emphasis, and then reads “z: :ero”; Amyevoices “z:e:ro:, stretching out the word while underlining it wither finger.

On the next page, printed beneath a frog hopping in a zig-zagattern, is the word ‘zig-zag,’ the problematic word which triggershe following correction sequence.

Example 8

Trouble is experienced by both parties almost simultaneously.ommy looks first at the zig-zag page and takes a deep and audi-le pre-speech in-breath while raising his right arm (line 1). Thismbodied movement appears to be an attempt to hold his turnpace while taking thinking time. However, Amy, who now alsoirects her focus to the word zig-zag, usurps his turn. She uttersz: a: per” with enthusiastic emphasis while pointing at the wordigzag (line 2).10 In his next turn, Tommy expresses uncertaintybout Amy’s reading, uttering “za: p”—a partial repeat of Amy’surn—with rising intonation (line 3). The rising contour of Tommy’stterance, which indicates that he is clarifying his understandingf Amy’s reading, is notably modulated. This deference is observedhroughout the sequence, as Tommy uses a rising pitch contour orlternately a gaze to Amy with each candidate word he proposeslines 8, 11, 19).

While Tommy’s actions grant epistemic authority to Amy, thessue remains that she does not know the word zigzag. This brings touestion who the addressee is of Amy’s correction-initiation turns

n lines 4, 6 and 11. To address this question, it is necessary to

xplore how through the sequential and simultaneous organizationf the children’s actions, Amy is able to achieve multiple align-ents in relation to her talk, specifically that of teacher and learner.

10 Amy’s lack of visible acknowledgment to Tommy’s hesitation, such as gazing tohe speaker as he conducts a “word search” (see Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986), as wells her excitement in reading suggests that her “turnsharking” (Erickson, 1996) isontinuation of her reading rather than an effort to help her partner.

ucation 41 (2017) 20–34

In this way, she—along with Tommy—are both the addressees ofher talk. (This alignment, nevertheless, produces an asymmetricalparticipation status as Tommy aligns towards the talk as only alearner.)

By uttering “zap” with rising intonation, Tommy has signaledthe possibility of error in Amy’s reading (line 3). Looking at Amy’simmediate next action, it appears she is opposing him. She usesthe polarity term, no, in the turn preface and in the same turnbubblegums the letter z (line 4). However, an alternate reading ofwhat is happening here is that she is conceding to his correction-initiation, and rethinking her initial reading. Her utterance notablylacks the kinds of remedial interchanges (Goffman, 1971) that areoften present in self-correction turns, such as I mean or oops. Yet,she modulates no through her use of soft, almost introspective into-nation, suggesting that she is not indicating outright opposition toTommy’s action. (The use of contrastive stress, in contrast, wouldindicate that she is bracketing the talk as somehow different thanwhat was said in Tommy’s prior turn.) And, in fact, Tommy didnot err in the first sound. Thus, in uttering the z sound, she is notcountering her partner’s last turn but instead is absorbed in anongoing effort to search for the correct word. However, Tommydoes treat Amy’s turn as a correction-initiation. He is familiar withthe response format of instruction where an initiation is followedby a response. He responds to Amy’s initiation (i.e., her utterance“no”) with another z word, “zoom” (line 5).

This correction-initiation/response format continues with Amyassuming the teacher’s role: Her correction-initiations provide theresources that project an upcoming correction completion, whileTommy’s increasingly far-off responses build off of the resourcesprovided in Amy’s prior action. However, we are reminded thatunlike the situation shown by Perry in Example 3, Amy is not inten-tionally withholding the correction but, in fact, is unable to proposethe correct word. In this way, her correction-initiations additionallypoint to her initial error.

In response to Tommy’s candidate correction, zoom, Amy takesan unambiguous oppositional stance, placing emphasis on no in herutterance, “no it has a ‘G’ oka: y,” as she points to the g at the endof the word, zigzag (line 6). Tommy understands Amy’s talk andher gesture to be indicating that his reading was incorrect in itsfinal letter sound. Behaving as a dutiful student, in the next turn,he utters “z: oo: mg,” emphasizing the letter g (line 7). NotablyTommy’s action here is similar to Holly and Perry’s cooperativebuilding of the word “box” (Example 3). In both of these examplesthe children achieve collaborative action, constructing somethingnew from what is provided by their partner and, thereby, changingtheir understanding of the text to which Amy is pointing and towhich both children are gazing (line 6).

Tommy repeats “zoomg” twice more, gazing to Amy for confir-mation (lines 8 & 9). Here we observe Amy’s only embodied stancedisplay towards Tommy’s actions: she meets Tommy’s gaze andsmiles slightly as she moves closer to the book to examine theword (line 8). In contrast to Perry’s stance displays (Section 11 thispaper) which build opposition to her partner’s moves, Amy’s smilesuggests that she recognizes the humor in the outcome of her andher partner’s coordinated actions, and in this way is aligning withTommy.

Through their ongoing actions we are able to observe the publicand cognitive processes through which the children put the puz-zle pieces together. They have mutually established that the wordbegins with z and ends with g. Amy’s focus now shifts to the letteri. She again begins to bubblegum the beginning sound, z (line 10).Apparently with the intention of sounding out i, as well, she asks,

“what sounds like “ih?” (the I sound) (line 11) and subsequentlyanswers her own question in the same turn, “I always says ih”(line 12). It is interesting that she has formatted this utterance as aknown answer question—a common feature of teacher instruction.

nd Ed

Hfwcr

atdIsi

ttdtac

etmtTPnrew

awrwwtht(

1

ibm

n“

S.J. Johnson / Linguistics a

owever, she has actually inverted the question in a Jeopardy-likeormat, by first stating the answer.11 Thus, within this utterancee observe one of those momentous occasions when a learner dis-

overs she knows more than she initially realized. And, indeed, thisevelation appears to lead her towards a correction completion.

While Amy assumes a teacher register (e.g., asking a knownnswer question), the sequence does not proceed as wouldurn-taking in teacher instruction. She does not pause to allowue consideration for Tommy to respond with the correction.

nstead, she reads “zig-zag” in the same turn space in whichhe provides the correction initiation ([trouble] + [correction-nitiation] + [other-correction]) (line 13).

M. Goodwin states that by not allowing the party who madehe error to self-correct, such turns propose self’s incompetenceo complete the correction. This format provides a contrast to thatemonstrated by Perry in Example 3 (and to prototypical correctionrajectories in teacher instruction); by decomposing the word sos to provide a scaffold for her partner’s reading, Perry indicatesonfidence in her peer’s ability to self-correct.

The current example, however, is unique in that both childrenxperience trouble in their initial turns. It can thus be arguedhat Amy is self-correcting (as opposed to other-correcting) at the

oment she discovers the correction. At the same time, throughouthis sequence, she has formatted her talk in a teacher-like manner.hus, Tommy understands her utterance to be an other-correction.artially overlapping her talk, he utters “zig-zag” with rising into-ation, indicating uncertainty (line 14). However, he ratifies theeplacement in the same turn; elongating the vowels and givingmphasis to the ending sounds, he utters “zi: g za: g with a down-ard intonational contour suggesting finality (line 15).

In this example we see Amy and Tommy–emerging readers whore both encountering an unfamiliar word–progressively shape theord through their coordinated actions in a way that gradually

eveals to both of them what it may be. The children discover theord zig-zag through a dynamic shifting of participation frame-orks in which Amy aligns towards her talk as both learner and

eacher (or speaker and addressee), thus leading both herself ander partner to new understandings, such as recognizing the distinc-ion between the phoneme /I/ (e.g., zigzag) versus the phoneme /æ/e.g., zap).

3. Learning to read with a friend

Thus far in this paper I have highlighted how children are build-ng, modifying and transforming the frame of helper and the one

eing helped (or teacher and student) within the moment-to-oment conduct of social interaction.

11 The children generally know the alphabet letters but not necessarily the pho-etic sounds, thus the question when looking at the letter ‘I’ would naturally beWhat sound does I make?”

ucation 41 (2017) 20–34 31

Finally, it is important to underscore that through the social andcognitive behaviors observed in this analysis children are learningto read.

To consider this assertion further it will be helpful to returnto the interaction of Holly reading to Perry. We saw in Example3 that Holly initially is unable to read the word box; she pausesreading and pushes her finger into the page while intently examin-ing the word. We recall that moments later she is able to read box,albeit with the help of her friend, Perry. Perry points to the wordand first shows Holly how to read the letter sound, b; then, whenHolly is still unable to read the word, she demonstrates the blend-ing of the b and o sounds. Building from these phonetic parts, Hollyreads, “box,” thus demonstrating a change in understanding frommoments earlier.

Let us now look a little further downstream in this interaction tosee what happens when Holly encounters the word box once again.Example 9 takes place several minutes after Holly first reads “box;”however, she has only advanced a couple of pages. In the transcriptwe can see that she is now seeking help from the researcher (SJJ)rather than Perry. This is because the researcher intervened whenthe girls were talking, telling Holly, “Let’s keep hearing you read.”Holly complies and continues reading as seen in the following par-tial transcript of her reading the sentence, Kit sat and sat in thebox.

Example 9

In lines 1–3, Holly’s reading is deliberate and slow with pausesand elongations of letter sounds. When her finger and gaze landupon the word box, she pauses for 4.5 s as she examines the word(line 4). She gazes up to SJJ asking, ‘is this a b’ (Line 5 and imageA)? Aware that Perry helped her read the word moments earlier,SJJ does not oblige her with an answer but rather says: “I heard youread that word several times already.” (She has actually only read itonce with Perry’s help). Holly looks down at the word again, scruti-nizing it for 1.4 s (image B), and then emphatically reads, “box” (line10). In image C, we see her dramatic stance display upon achievingthis correct reading. She looks up to SJJ with a self-satisfied scowl,reminiscent of a mustached, old-western actor who has rescued adistressed damsel.

By closely describing the engagement of Holly reading a picturebook with a peer (Examples 3, 4 & 9), we are able to see changes inthe interaction across time, specifically from before learning, dur-ing learning, and after having learned (Erickson, 1982b). In each

of these successive moments in time, we observe Holly, with thehelp of others, gradually move towards self-sufficient competence,where she can read the word without assistance. (Although in

3 nd Ed

Ebw

1

itootttletdpti3tbhp

ontdlscpcatct&moossbbocoa

ttcoeIsgPci

2 S.J. Johnson / Linguistics a

xample 9 she still requires minimal scaffolding before readingox, we can imagine that in time she will be reading single syllableords that begin with b without hesitation.)

4. Conclusions

What we are witnessing in observing Holly read box with a friends learning at a microgenetic scale, defined by Vygotsky (1980) ashe unfolding of an individual perceptual or conceptual act whichccurs over a relatively small period of time (e.g., milliseconds, sec-nds, minutes or a day). There are a number of implications to beaken from this. For one, appreciation of this microgenetic changeakes a re-conceptualization of the study of learning, thinking andeaching. The examples in this paper demonstrate the process ofearning to involve “a reflexively adaptive transaction between thenvironment and the individual, in which each stimulates change inhe other” (Erickson, 1982b, p. 151). In Example 8, Amy and Tommyo not discover the unknown word zigzag by simply looking at theage. Instead they achieve a correct reading by talking and pointingo the page, identifying what they see, such as the letter g, until theyncrementally are able to decode the word. Likewise, in Examples

and 4, Holly does not passively receive information from Perry orhe text. Rather, we see her actively looking at the page and bub-legumming the phonetic sounds of letters. We also see her look toer peer for help as well as assert her competence when her peerositions her as a subordinate.

Secondly, we are reminded to enlarge the frame of an analysisf learning. The interactions between young children as they learnew words in these examples speak to how integrated social rela-ions are with cognitive development. They also demonstrate theiverse resources that come into play as part of the teaching and

earning interaction. To date the bulk of research on peer interactioneeks to correlate peer talk (and talk alone) with learning out-omes. In a survey of research on classroom interaction (conductedrimarily in British primary schools) Howe and Mercer (2007) con-lude that the majority of dialogue among peers is impoverishednd unproductive. There is certainly agreement in the field withhe authors’ conclusions that task design of the activity as well aslassroom climate matter in terms of how well children are ableo collaborate in an activity (Cazden et al., 1979; Cooper, Marquis,

Edward, 1986; Damon, 1984; Patterson & Roberts, 1982). Weight come, however, to different conclusions about the quality

f children’s talk if we ask: productive of what? After all, if talkr interaction is happening, it must be doing something—i.e., haveome function and not just be a waste of energy. In this sense allocial action is productive—the issue is to identify in terms of mem-ers’ way of making sense, their own purposes, what it is that iseing produced (personal communication, F. Erickson, 2012). Inther words, we gain only a partial, and inadequate view of whathildren are doing with one another when we consider academicutcomes without accounting for the complex milieu in which theyre constituted.

Moreover, analyses that consider the diversity of resourceshrough which one learns might advance our understanding ofhe processes of learning. This analysis demonstrates that the co-onstruction of peer correction involves the mutual elaborationf diverse semiotic resources, including talk, spatial formations,mbodied actions, and picture books (see also, De León, this issue).n Example 2, we observe how Edith is able to collaboratively build aentence with Ayanshi by interpreting that Ayanshi’s pause and her

aze to Edith are a request for help. And, Examples 3 and 4, whereerry helps Holly read box, demonstrate how children systemati-ally overlay talk with varying forms of stance, expressed throughntonation, facial expression and embodied action. It is through

ucation 41 (2017) 20–34

these displays children negotiate their footing; Perry attempts toassert her role as teacher by evaluating her peer and doing teacher-like corrections, and Holly attempts to save face by aggressivelycontesting being positioned as a subordinate (e.g., her making of afist). In these, and across all the examples in this paper, by lookingat how children coordinate talk and embodied action around read-ing a book together, we are able to appreciate children’s ability to:1) establish social order within the peer group, and 2) monitor,correct, evaluate, as well as modify and transform their partner’sreading.

Lastly, as highlighted by Sterponi’s (2007) investigation ofchildren’s clandestine, “under the desk,” peer reading, too oftenteachers do not provide opportunities in the classroom for thesekinds of interactions to take place. This is particularly the case inschools that serve poor children. The realization by teachers thatone can put young children together to help each other learn toread, even if neither child is yet a fluent reader, could change thesocial and cognitive landscape of early grades classrooms. It mayalso have a lifetime impact on children who grow up to be notonly good decoders but, also, to be individuals who view readingas something they like to do.

In summary, by locating the achievement of reading a new wordwithin the specific activity of peer reading, we are able to seechildren’s competence and agency in enacting an environment forlearning. By correcting a peer, children collaboratively engage ina public practice of shaping knowledge that is important to thekindergarten learning community, such as word recognition andphonemic awareness. At the same time, they are enjoying readingwith a friend. Considering both of these—children’s moment-to-moment actions within the context of the assigned task and thepeer social group—will lead to more robust theorizing on the situ-ated and social nature of children’s language and literacy learning,while also opening our awareness for further maximizing peerinstruction.

Acknowledgements

I am thankful to Marjorie Goodwin, Frederick Erickson, andAmy Kyratzis, as well as the Linguistics and Education editors,David Poveda and Theresa Lillis, for their helpful comments dur-ing various stages of developing this manuscript. Charles Goodwinand members of his discourse laboratory at UCLA also providedinsights to the data I present in this paper, for which I am grate-ful. I acknowledge Nancy Whitt for her editing assistance. I extendmy appreciation to Mike Rose for reading multiple drafts of thismanuscript, providing a perceptive critique, and helping me thinkthrough issues of writing. I also owe deep gratitude to the teachersand students of Room B who inspired this work.

Appendix A.

Transcription conventions

Data are transcribed following the system developed by Jeffer-son and described in Sacks et al. (1975, pp. 731–733); see alsoGoodwin, 2006, pp. 256–257). The following are the transcriptionsymbols most relevant to the present paper.

nd Ed

R

AB

B

CC

C

CC

D

D

D

DE

E

E

E

E

F

F

F

F

F

G

S.J. Johnson / Linguistics a

◦ A degree symbol indicates that talk it precedes is low in volume.– A dash marks a cut-off in sound or an interruption.WORD Bold italics indicate some form of emphasis, such as changes in

pitch and/or amplitude.[ A left bracket marks where there is overlapping or simultaneous

talk.: Colons indicate that the sound immediately preceding has been

noticeably lengthened.. A period indicates a falling intonation.? A question mark indicates a rising intonation., A comma indicates a falling-rising intonation.= An equal sign marks where an utterance is “latched;” there is no

interval between the end of a prior turn and the start of the nextturn of talk.

*h A series of h’s preceded by an asterisk marks an inbreath.h A series of h’s (without an asterick) marks an outbreath∼ Tildes indicate rapid speech(()) Double parentheses enclose material that is not part of the talk

being transcribed for example, a comment by the transcriberwhich describes the talk or other non-verbal action.

(0.0) Numbers in parenthesis mark silence in seconds and tenths ofseconds.

() Material in parenthesis indicates that the transcriber wasuncertain about what she was hearing.

(h) An h in parenthesis indicates plosive aspiration from laughter.

eferences

ustin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: Oxford University Press.ateson, G. (2006). A theory of play and fantasy. pp. 314–328. Cambridge, MA: The

MIT Press.itchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118.alkins, L. M. (2001). The art of teaching reading. New York: Longman.azden, C. B., Cox, M., Dickinson, D., Steinberg, Z., & Stone, C. (1979). You all gonna

haftalisten: peer teaching in a primary classroom. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Children’slanguage and communication (12) (pp. 183–231). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

ekaite, A., & Björk-Willén, P. (2013). Peer group interactions in multilingual edu-cational settings: co-constructing social order and norms for language use.International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(2), 174–188.

lark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.ooper, C. R., Marquis, A., & Edward, D. (1986). Four perspectives on peer learning

among elementary school children. In E. C. Mueller, & C. R. Cooper (Eds.), Processand outcome in peer relationships (pp. 269–300). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

amon, W. (1984). Peer education: the untapped potential. Journal of Applied Devel-opmental Psychology, 5(4), 331–343.

e León, L. (2015). Mayan children’s creation of learning ecologies by initiative andcooperative action. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 49(1), 153–184.

e León, L., Emerging learning ecologies. Mayan children’s initiative and correctionaldirectives in their everyday enskilment practices, Linguistics and education, thisissue.

ewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.rickson, F. (1982a). Classroom discourse as improvisation: relationships between

academic task structure and social participation structure in lessons. In L. C.Wilkinson (Ed.), Communication in the classroom (pp. 155–181). New York: Aca-demic Press.

rickson, F. (1982b). Taught cognitive learning in its immediate environments: aneglected topic in the anthropology of education. Anthropology & EducationQuarterly, 13(2), 149–180.

rickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: the social and cognitive ecology of teacher-student interaction in classroom conversations. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse,learning, and schooling (pp. 29–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

rickson, F. (2010). The neglected listener: issues of theory and practice in tran-scription from video in interaction analysis. In J. Streeck (Ed.), New adventuresin language and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

valdsson, A. C., & Cekaite, A. (2010). ‘Schwedis. He can’t even say Swedish’: Sub-verting and reproducing institutionalized norms for language use in multilingualpeer groups. Pragmatics, 20, 587–604.

lewitt, R. (2011). Bringing ethnography to a multimodal investigation of early lit-eracy in a digital age. Qualitative Research, 11(3), 293–310.

lewitt, R. S. (2012). Multimodal perspectives on early childhood literacies. In N.Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), The sage handbook of early childhood literacy.London: Sage.

orrester, M. A., & Cherington, S. M. (2009). The development of other-related con-versational skills: a case study of conversational repair during the early years.First Language, 29(2), 166–191.

orrester, M. A. (2008). The emergence of self-repair: a case study of one child duringthe early preschool years. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1),

99–128.

riedman, D. A. (2010). Speaking correctly: error correction as a language socializa-tion practice in a Ukrainian classroom. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 346–367.

offman, E. (1964). The neglected situation. In J. J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes (Eds.),American anthropologist (66) (2nd ed., 66, pp. 133–136) [Special Issue] 6, Part 2.

ucation 41 (2017) 20–34 33

Goffman, E. (1971/2010). Relations in public. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Pub-lishers.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Goodwin, M. H., & Alim, H. S. (2010). Whatever (Neck roll, eye roll, teeth suck): the

situated coproduction of social categories and identities through stancetakingand transmodal stylization. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 20(1), 179–194.

Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity ofsearching for a word. Semiotica, 62(1–2), 51–76.

Goodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2007). Children socializing children: practices fornegotiating the social order among peers. Research on Language and Social Inter-action, 40, 279–289.

Goodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2012). Peer language socialization. In A. Duranti,E. Ochs, & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization. Malden:Wiley-Blackwell.

Goodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2014). Language and gender in children’s peer inter-actions. In M. Meyerhoff, & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), The handbook of language, gender,and sexuality. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Goodwin, M. H. (1983). Aggravated correction and disagreement in children’s con-versations. Journal of Pragmatics, 7(6), 657–677.

Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: talk as social organization among blackchildren. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.

Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction.Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522.

Goodwin, M. H. (2006). The hidden life of girls: games of stance, status, and exclusion.Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities.Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73.

Goodwin, C. (2010). Things and their embodied environments. In L. Malafouris, & C.Renfrew (Eds.), The cognitive life of things: recasting the boundaries of the mind(pp. 103–120). Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.

Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human actionand knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23.

Goodwin, C. (2014). The intelligibility of gesture within a framework of Co-Operativeaction. In M. Seyfeddinipur, & M. Gullberg (Eds.), Visible utterance in action.University of London, UK and Lund University, Sweden.

Goodwin, M. H. (2015). Haptic sociality: the embodied interactive constitution ofintimacy through touch and voice. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck, & J. S. Jordan (Eds.),Intercorporeality: beyond the body. New York: Oxford University Press.

Griswold, O. (2007). Achieving authority: discursive practices in Russian girls’ pre-tend play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40, 291–319.

Gumperz, J. J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (2005). Making space for bilingual communicativepractice. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(1), 1–23.

Hall, J. K. (2007). Redressing the roles of correction and repair in research on secondand foreign language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 511–526.

Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? Interna-tional Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 255–270.

Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: teacherrepetition in feedback moves. Language in Society, 32(1), 79–104.

Hornberger, N. H. (1997). Literacy, language maintenance, and linguistic humanrights: three telling cases. International Journal of the Sociology of Language,127(1), 87–104.

Howe, C., & Mercer, N. (2007). Children’s social development, peer interaction andclassroom learning (Primary review research survey 2/1b). Cambridge: Universityof Cambridge Faculty of Education.

Jefferson, G. (1974). Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society,3(02), 181–199.

Jefferson, G. (2007). Preliminary notes on abdicated other-correction. Journal of Prag-matics, 39(3), 445–461.

Johnson, S. J. (2015). The social and cognitive worlds of young children reading together.Los Angeles: University of California. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Jung, E. H. S. (1999). The organization of second language classroom repair. Issues inApplied Linguistics, 10(2), 153–171.

Kääntä, L. (2010). Teacher turn-allocation and repair practices in classroom interaction:a multisemiotic perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved fromJyväskylä University Digital Archive (http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-3811-6.

Kasper, G. (1986). Repair in foreign language teaching. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Learning,teaching and communication in the foreign language classroom. Denmark: AarhusUniversitetsforlag.

Keevallik, L. (2010). Bodily quoting in dance correction. Research on Language andSocial Interaction, 43(4), 401–426.

Kyratzis, A. and Johnson, S.J. Introduction, this issue.Kyratzis, A., & Marx, T. (2001). Preschoolers’ communicative competence: register

shift in the marking of power in different contexts of friendship group talk. FirstLanguage, 21(63), 387–429.

Kyratzis, A. (2007). Using the social organizational affordances of role playing inAmerican preschool girls’ interactions. Research on Language and Social Interac-tion, 40, 321–352.

Kyratzis, A., Peer ecologies for learning to read: exhibiting reading, orchestratingparticipation, and learning over time in bilingual Mexican-American preschool-ers’ play enactments of reading to a peer, Linguistics and education, this issue.

Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: psychotherapy as conversation.New York: Academic Press.

Lee, Y. A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: contingency and the work ofteaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(6), 1204–1230.

3 nd Ed

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

N

P

P

R

R

R

S

S

S

4 S.J. Johnson / Linguistics a

iebscher, G., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2003). Conversational repair as a role definingmechanism in classroom interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3),375–390.

inell, P. (1998). . Approaching dialogue: talk, interaction and contexts in dialogicalperspectives (Vol. 3) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

acbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language inSociety, 33(05), 703–736.

argutti, P. (2004). Classroom interaction in an italian primary school: instructionalsequences in pedagogic settings. unpublished PhD dissertation. University of York:Department of Sociology.

arzollo, J. (1992). I spy christmas: a book of picture riddles. New York: CartwheelBooks.

cHoul, A. W. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language inSociety, 19(03), 349–377.

ehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press., p. 80.

elander, H. (2012). Transformations of knowledge within a peer group. Knowingand learning in interaction Learning. Culture and Social Interaction, 1(3), 232–248.

ercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching andlearning: the value and potential of sociocultural theory Learning. Culture andSocial Interaction, 1(1), 12–21.

ercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development ofreasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.

erton, R. (1973). The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations.Chicago: University of Chicago.

oore, K., Managing transgressions: Use of directives in reading practice, Linguisticsand education, this issue.

assaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of triadic dialogue?: An investigationof teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376–406.

ahl, K. (2005). Narratives, artifacts and cultural identities: an ethnographic studyof communicative practices in homes. Linguistics and Education, 15(4), 339–358.

atterson, C., & Roberts, R. (1982). Planning and the development of communicationskills. In D. Forbes, & M. Greenberg (Eds.), Children’s planning strategies: newdirections for child development (pp. 29–46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

azfar, A. (2006). Language ideologies in practice: repair and classroom discourse.Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 404–424.

ogoff, B., Turkanis, C. G., & Bartlett, L. (2001). Learning together: children and adultsin a school community. New York: Oxford University Press.

ogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context.New York: Oxford University Press.

acks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organi-zation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.

chegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction inthe organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.

chegloff, E. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon(Ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. XII: discourse and syntax (pp. 261–288). NewYork: Academic Press.

ucation 41 (2017) 20–34

Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense ofintersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1295–1345.

Scollon, R. (2001). Action and text: towards an integrated understanding of the placeof text in social (inter) action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem ofsocial action. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis.London: Sage.

Seedhouse, P. (1999). The relationship between context and the organization ofrepair in the L2 classroom. Iral, 37(1), 59–80.

Seedhouse, P. (2007). On ethnomethodological CA and linguistic CA: a reply to hall.The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 527–533.

Selting, M. (1994). Emphatic speech style—With special focus on the prosodic signal-ing of heightened emotive involvement in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics,22(3), 375–408.

Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press.

Steinberg, Z. D., & Cazden, C. B. (1979). Children as teachers—of peers and ourselves.Theory into Practice, 18(4), 258–266.

Steinberg, Z. D. (1979). Peer teaching discourse: one peer group’s negotiation of statusand role in a school for the emotionally disturbed. unpublished doctoral dissertation.Harvard University.

Sterponi, L. (2007). Clandestine interactional reading: intertextuality and double-voicing under the desk. Linguistics and Education, 18(1), 1–23.

Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In C. Moore, & P. J. Dunham(Eds.), Joint attention: its origins and role in development (p. 103). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological pro-cesses. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. London: Routledge.Weeks, P. (1985). Error −correction techniques and sequences in instructional set-

tings: toward a comparative framework. Human Studies, 8, 195–233.Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1–37.Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. In G. E. M. Anscombe, & R.

Rhees (Eds.),. Oxford: Blackwell.Wohlwend, K. E. (2007). Playing to read and reading to play: a mediated discourse

analysis of early literacy apprenticeship. In 56th yearbook of the national readingconference, Vol. 56, 377–393.

Wohlwend, K. E. (2009). Early adopters: playing new literacies and pretending newtechnologies in print-centric classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(2),117–140.

Wolfe, S., & Flewitt, R. (2010). New technologies, new multimodal literacy prac-tices and young children’s metacognitive development. Cambridge Journal ofEducation, 40(4), 387–399.

van Lier, L. (1994). (4th imprint). The classroom and the language learner: ethnographyand second-language classroom research. London: Longman.

Wootton, A. J. (2007). A puzzle about please: repair, increments, and related mat-ters in the speech of a young child. Research on Language and Social Interaction,40(2–3), 171–198.