Responding beyond the informative content: Pupils conforming their answers to question expectations in whole-class interaction

Piera Margutti; Daniele Urlotti; Elisa Rossi

doi:10.60923/issn.1970-2221/22567

Autori

Piera Margutti University of Modena and Reggio Emilia

Piera Margutti is Associate Professor of Linguistics and Conversation Analysis at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. Her research spans from the study of talk in classrooms, clinical encounters and mundane interaction. She investigated both teachers’ conducts such as questioning, evaluating and reproaching, and students’ responses and initiatives. She studied medical interaction in various settings. She studied interaction among family members in telephone calls and face-to-face encounters, focusing on word-searches, teasing, apologies and invitations.
Daniele Urlotti University of Modena and Reggio Emilia

Daniele Urlotti is a research fellow and adjunct professor at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. His work focuses on Conversation Analysis applied to institutional interactions in healthcare and education, including monolingual contexts and cases in which intercultural mediators assist service users with limited proficiency in the service language.
Elisa Rossi University of Modena and Reggio Emilia

Elisa Rossi is Associate Professor of Sociology of Cultural and Communicative Processes at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, where she teaches sociology courses focused on gender relations, conflicts and dialogue. She carried out extensive research on dialogic facilitation of children’s agency and gender narratives in educational contexts. She participated as author at several local, national and international conferences; she is author of two monographs and (co)author of several essays in books and reviews.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60923/issn.1970-2221/22567

Parole chiave:

competenza interazionale dei bambini, interazione in classe, lezioni plenarie, risposte dei bambini, auto-riparazione

Abstract

L’articolo esplora un tipo di risposte degli alunni alle domande dell’insegnante nel contesto di attività organizzate in forma plenaria in tre scuole elementari di una regione dell’Italia del Nord. Il nostro obiettivo è di documentare la competenza degli alunni nel risolvere situazioni in cui, a causa del contesto altamente competitivo nelle lezioni frontali, accade che la risposta non sia più in linea con le richieste della domanda. La ricerca si basa su un corpus di lezioni video-registrate in tre classi terze, con bambini di 8-9 anni. L’analisi si concentra su un tipo specifico di risposte: quelle che offrono più della mera informazione richiesta. Osservando il materiale aggiuntivo, l’analisi mostra come i bambini mostrino di possedere una sofisticata competenza interazionale che permette loro di confezionare risposte appropriate in situazioni in cui, a causa di sopravvenute condizioni contingenti, queste non siano (più) in linea con le richieste espresse nella domanda a cui aspiravano di rispondere.

Riferimenti bibliografici

Allal, L., & Pelgrims Ducrey, G. (2000). Assessment of – or in – the zone of proximal development. Learning and Instruction, 10(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00025-0

Bazzanella, C. (2010). I segnali discorsivi. In G. Salvi & L. Renzi (Eds.), Grammatica dell’italiano antico (Vol. 2, pp. 1339–1357). Il Mulino.

Berruto, G. (1998). Sociolinguistica dell’italiano contemporaneo. Carocci.

Caffi, C. (2007). Mitigation. Studies in pragmatics. Elsevier.

Davies, G. M., Westcott, H. L., & Horan, N. (2000). The impact of questioning style on the content of investigative interviews with suspected child abuse victims. Psychology, Crime & Law, 6, 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160008410834

Drew, P. (2013). Turn design. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 131–149). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch7

Drew, P. (2018). Epistemics – The rebuttal special issue: An introduction. Discourse Studies, 20(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617739742

Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In J. Sidnell, M. Hayashi & G. Raymond (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 71–94). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757464.003

Fritzley, V. H., & Lee, K. (2003). Do young children always say “yes” to yes/no questions? A metadevelopmental study of the affirmation bias. Child Development, 74(5), 1297–1313. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00608

Garfinkel, H. (2005). Seeing sociologically: The routine grounds of social action (A. W. Rawls, Ed.). Paradigm Publishers. (Original work published 1948).

Gee, S., Gregory, M., & Pipe, M.-E. (1999). “What colour is your pet dinosaur?” The impact of pre-interview training and question type on children’s answers. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532599167716

Hammersley, M. (1977). School learning: The cultural resources required by pupils to answer the teachers’ question 1. In P. Woods & M. Hammersley (Eds.), School experience (pp. 57–86). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315213682-3

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press.

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. (2017). Transcribing for social research. Sage.

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press.

Heritage, M., & Heritage, J. (2013). Teacher questioning: The epicenter of instruction and assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 26(3), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2013.793190

Ippolito, M., Kiss, A., & Williams, W. (2022). The discourse function of adversative conjunction. In D. Gutzmann & S. Repp (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 26 (pp. 465–482). University of Cologne. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2022.v26i0.1012

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–34). John Benjamins.

Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(3), 277–309. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2

Krähenbühl, S., & Blades, M. (2006). The effect of interviewing techniques on young children’s responses to questions. Child: Care, Health and Development, 32(3), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00608.x

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

Lee, Y., & Kinzie, M. B. (2012). Teacher question and student response with regard to cognition and language use. Instructional Science, 40, 857–874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9193-2

Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20(3), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572

MacLure, M., & French, P. (1980). Routes to right answers: On pupils’ strategies for answering teachers’ questions. In P. Woods (Ed.), Pupil strategies: Explorations in the sociology of the school (pp. 74–93). Croom Helm.

Margutti, P. (2010). On designedly incomplete utterances: What counts as learning for teachers and students in primary classroom interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(4), 315–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2010.497629

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organizations in the classroom. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106

Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780902954273

Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of “triadic dialogue”? An investigation of teacher–student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376–406. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.376

Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–198. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3502_3

Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Multilingual Matters.

Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.

Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123

Stivers, T., Sidnell, J., & Bergen, C. (2018). Children’s responses to questions in peer interaction: A window into the ontogenesis of interactional competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 124, 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.11.013

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4

Wells, G. (1993). Re-evaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(05)80001-4

Dire più dell'informazione richiesta: Come gli alunni rispondono alle aspettative delle domande dell'insegnante in lezioni plenarie

Autori

DOI:

Parole chiave:

Abstract

Riferimenti bibliografici

Downloads

Pubblicato

Come citare

Fascicolo

Sezione

Licenza

Lingua

Fai una proposta

Keywords

Ultimo numero