How primary school children address reading problems in dialogic reading

Authors

  • Maaike Pulles NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands
  • Jan Berenst NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands
  • Tom Koole University of Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Kees de Glopper University of Groningen, The Netherlands

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.12411

Keywords:

dialogic reading, peer interaction, reading problems, shared problem solving, classroom interaction

Abstract

In dialogic reading during inquiry learning settings in primary school, pupils read, think and talk together about text fragments for answering their research questions. In this process, pupils may encounter reading problems, regarding word identification or meaning. Conversation analysis is used to demonstrate how these reading problems are collaboratively addressed. Word identification problems are mostly signalled implicitly during the genuine reading activity and are in most cases immediately corrected by the co-participant, to continue the reading activity as smooth as possible. Meaning problems are displayed more explicitly, by use of requests for information, that are explicit about the purpose, but not always explicitly addressed to the other participant. Therefore all participants, including the text in a principal role, can assist.

Author Biographies

  • Maaike Pulles, NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands

    Maaike Pulles is researcher at the NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences in Leeuwarden and the University of Groningen. Her PhD research is concerned with dialogic reading and knowledge building in inquiry learning settings in primary education. Before she has been working at the University of Groningen as researcher and advisor on language education.

  • Jan Berenst, NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands

    Jan Berenst is retired professor Discourse & Learning at the NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences in Leeuwarden, the Netherlands. Previously, he worked as a senior lecturer and researcher at the Center for Language and Cognition of the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. He published on intercultural communication, medical interaction, teacher meetings, classroom interaction, children’s conversations, literacy development and language pedagogy.

  • Tom Koole, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

    Tom Koole is professor of language and social interaction at the University of Groningen. He has used conversation analysis to investigate classroom interaction, emergency calls and health communication. He is also a visiting professor in the Health Communication Research Unit of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. His present research is concerned with the use in interaction of linguistic and embodied tokens of understanding.

  • Kees de Glopper, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

    Kees de Glopper is professor of Speech Communication and Discourse Analysis at the University of Groningen, where he teaches courses in literacy, language education and research methodology. His research interests include literacy, interaction and learning, reading and writing education, vocabulary learning and educational technology.

References

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (ed.), The Dialogic Imagination (trans. C. Emerson). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Berenst, J. (2011). Samenwerken en taalvaardigheid: samenwerkend leren als werkvorm voor de stimulering van de mondelinge en schriftelijke taalvaardigheid van basisschoolkinderen. Raak-PRO projectvoorstel [Cooperation and Language Proficiency: Collaborative Learning as a Practice for Promoting Children’s Oral and Written Language Proficiency in Primary School]. Leeuwarden: NHL University of Applied Sciences.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou

Curl, T. S. & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613

Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Elbers, E. & de Haan, M. (2005). The construction of word meaning in a multicultural classroom. Mediational tools in peer collaboration during mathematics lessons. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173210

Enfield, N. J. (2011). Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (eds), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 285–312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013

Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In E. Goffman (ed.), Forms of Talk (pp. 124–159). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Gosen, M., Berenst, J. & de Glopper, C. (2015a). Shared reading at kindergarten: Understanding book content through participation. Pragmatics and Society, 6(3), 367–397. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.6.3.03gos

Gosen, M., Berenst, J. & de Glopper, K. (2015b). Problem-solving during shared reading at kindergarten. Classroom Discourse, 6(3), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2014.991339

Jakonen, T. (2015). Handling knowledge: Using classroom materials to construct and interpret information requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 89, 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.001

Jakonen, T. & Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt031

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef

Johnson, S. J. (2017). Multimodality and footing in peer correction in reading picture books. Linguistics and Education, 41, 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.004

Kääntä, L. (2017). In search of proper pronunciation: Students’ practicing of soliciting help during read-aloud. AFinLA-e, 10, 61–81. https://doi.org/10.30660/afinla.73125

Kendrick, K. H. & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organ­ization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436

Koole, T. (2010). Displays of epistemic access: Student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(2), 183–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351811003737846

Littleton, K. & Kerawalla, L. (2012). Trajectories of inquiry learning. In K. Littleton, E. Scanlon & M. Sharples (eds), Orchestrating Inquiry Learning (pp. 31–47). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203136195-8

Maine, F. (2015). Dialogic Readers: Children Talking and Thinking Together about Visual Texts. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315718217

Maybin, J. (2013). What counts as reading? PIRLS, EastEnders and the man on the flying trapeze. Literacy, 47(2), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12005

Maybin, J. & Moss, G. (1993). Talk about texts: Reading as a social event. Journal of Research in Reading, 16(2), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1993.tb00043.x

Melander, H. & Sahlström, F. (2009). In tow of the blue whale. Learning as inter­actional changes in topical orientation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1519–1537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.013

Mondada, L. (2014). Requesting immediate action in the surgical operating room. Time, embodied resources and praxeological embeddedness. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (ed.), Requesting in Social Interaction (pp. 270–302). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.11mon

Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 392–412.

Oakhill, J., Cain, K. & McCarthy, D. (2015). Inference processing in children: The contributions of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge. In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cook & J. Lorch Robert F. (eds), Inferences during Reading (pp. 140–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107279186.008

Perfetti, C. & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading com­prehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687

Rossi, G. (2014). When do people not use language to make requests? In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen &(eds), Requesting in Social Interaction (pp. 303–334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.12ros

Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York: Irvington.

Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (eds) (2013). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley.

Szymanski, M.H. (2003). Producing text through talk: Question-answering activity in classroom peer groups. Linguistics and Education, 13(4), 533–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0898-5898(03)00003-2

Tanner, M. (2017). Taking interaction in literacy events seriously: A conversation analysis approach to evolving literacy practices in the classroom. Language and Education, 31(5), 400–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2017.1305398

Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing Conversation Analysis (2nd edition). London: Sage.

Van der Westhuizen, G. J. (2012). Reading comprehension interaction: A conversation analysis perspective. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 30(3), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2012.739330

Wegerif, R. (2011). Towards a dialogic theory of how children learn to think. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(3), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2011.08.002

Willemsen, A., Gosen, M. N., Koole, T. & de Glopper, K. (2019). Teachers’ pass-on practices in whole-class discussions: How teachers return the floor to their students. Classroom Discourse, 11(4), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1585890

Willemsen, A., Gosen, M. N., van Braak, M., Koole, T. & de Glopper, K. (2018). Teachers’ open invitations in whole-class discussions. Linguistics and Education, 45, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.03.001

Zinken, J. & Rossi, G. (2016). Assistance and other forms of cooperative engagement. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126439

Downloads

Published

2021-02-16

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 2 (2020)

Section

Articles

License

© Equinox Publishing Ltd.

For information regarding our Open Access policy, click here.

How to Cite

Pulles, M. ., Berenst, J., Koole, T., & de Glopper, K. (2021). How primary school children address reading problems in dialogic reading. Research on Children and Social Interaction, 4(2), 217–242. https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.12411