Gifted Conversations

Classroom Discourse

Studies of mainstream classroom interaction highlight the univocal, asymmetrical nature of classroom discourse (e.g., Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003; Berry, 1981; Chinn et al., 2001; Drew & Heritage, 1992; Edwards & Mercer, 1989; Galton, Hargreaves, Comber, Wall, & Pell, 1999; Gutiérrez & Larson, 1994; Nassaji & Wells, 2000; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Smith, Hardman, Wall, & Mroz, 2004; Wood, 1986). The asymmetrical nature of classroom discourse manifests in a number of ways. Teachers dominate the discussion, functioning as “gatekeepers to learning opportunities” (Hall & Walsh, 2002, p. 188). Teachers also control the topic of discussion and the turns for speaking, and they serve as the interpretive authority (Chinn et al., 2001). Finally, teachers are endowed with the conversational “privilege” of evaluating student responses. This feature clearly distinguishes classroom interaction from mundane conversation and “reaffirms both the [teachers’] claim to superior knowledge and their role as testers of students” (Drew & Heritage, 1992, p. 41).

The “unmarked” or “default” (Cazden, 1988) mode of instruction is recitation, which is usually equated with the “Triad Structure” (Lemke, 1982) of Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF), first described by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). In exchanges of IRF, the teacher initiates a question, followed by student response, which is followed, in turn, by teacher feedback. Researchers sometimes refer to this sequence as IRE, rather than IRF, where E stands for evaluation (e.g., Mehan, 1979a). Yet others (e.g., Nassaji & Wells, 2000; Wells, 1993, 1996) defined the third move as follow-up and argued that the distinction between evaluation and follow-up was significant. According to these latter researchers, evaluation occurs when the teacher merely checks the students’ knowledge (i.e., correct/incorrect). Follow-up, on the other hand, occurs when the teacher integrates the student’s response in an attempt to further develop the discussion (Wells, 1993).

Numerous studies described the pervasiveness of the IRE sequence in mainstream classrooms (e.g., Applebee et al., 2003; Cazden, 1988; Galton et al., 1999; Mehan, 1979a; Molinari, Mameli, & Gnisci, 2012; Smith et al., 2004). These studies addressed various questions related to IRE and its effects on discourse and learning. Research indicates that classroom discourse predominated by IRE does not leave much room for student initiation (Drew & Heritage, 1992). Waring (2009) argued that “chained IRFs . . . are almost impervious to restructuring, as one IRF makes the next conditionally relevant” (p. 817), forming what Schegloff (2007) referred to as “sequences of sequences.” Indeed, in Mehan’s (1979a) data, out of a total of 387 initiations produced during elicitation sections, 361 (93%) were initiated by the teacher, whereas only 26 (7%) were initiated by the students. This imbalance is problematic, because teacher questions “foil the discussion” (Dillon, 1985), whereas student questions are a key trigger for “dismantling of IRF” (Waring, 2009, p. 817) and encouraging dialogic discourse (Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser, & Long, 2003).

However, not all teacher questions are equal. Unfortunately, numerous studies indicated that teachers asked mainly “Known Information Questions” (Mehan, 1979b), also known as “Test Questions” (Nystrand, 1997), “Display Questions” (Cazden, 1988), or “Known Answer Questions” (Gutiérrez & Larson, 1994), rather than “Information Seeking” (Mehan 1979b), “Authentic” (Nystrand, 1997), or “Negotiatory” (Nassaji & Wells, 2000) questions.

Interestingly, the asymmetry of classroom discourse is reinforced not only by the teachers’ discursive patterns but also by the students’ patterns. Indeed, as Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) pointed out, “Pupils acknowledge the [teacher’s] domination by choosing elliptical responses, and by avoiding initiation” (p. 130). Peled (1993) described a problematic reality in which teachers and students interpreted student silence as a cooperative conversational practice. Peled-Elhanan and Blum-Kulka (2006) demonstrated that student responses very often merely “ventriloquate” the teacher’s voice.

The difficulty of encouraging student participation is apparent in the literature on classroom discourse. Researchers often point out the teacher’s difficulty of “soliciting” or “eliciting” student contributions (e.g., Mortimer & Scott, 2003; Nystrand et al., 2003), as well as the difficulty of sustaining open discussion (Applebee et al., 2003). Lefstein (2008) described the difficulties some teachers encountered when attempting to encourage student participation: The teacher “spends over a minute trying to find someone who will answer his open questions,” “continues to insist upon a pupil response,” “begging for cooperation.” The teacher “urges the others,” provides hints, simplifies the original question, and finally proceeds to answer the question himself (pp. 721-729).

Hence, despite certain advantages that might be gained via recitation (IRE; e.g., Rymes, 2009; Stodolsky, Ferguson, & Wimpelberg, 1981; Zemel & Koschmann, 2011), numerous researchers (e.g., Lemke, 1982; Nystrand, 1997; Peled-Elhanan & Blum-Kulka, 2006) viewed recitation as primarily univocal.

Alternative, more balanced instructional practices are the various dialogic approaches, such as Dialogic Instruction (Nystrand, 1997), Dialogic Teaching (Alexander, 2004), or Dialogic Inquiry (Wells, 1999). Admittedly, these labels cover a range of approaches that are not identical. However, “the consistent message is for supportive and substantive opportunities for engaged talk with content—to explore, challenge, reconsider, and extend ideas in ways that enhance student learning” (Boyd & Markarian, 2011, p. 519).

The value of dialogic discourse in the classroom goes back to Vygotsky’s (1962) theory, which pointed at the inseparable link between thought development and language. Similarly, Linell (1998) argued, “Speakers talk not only in order to be understood by their interlocutors, but also in order to understand what they themselves say and think” (p. 94).

There seems to be a consensus among educational researchers regarding the significance of dialogic discourse for learning. Nevertheless, studies still indicate that “there is a dearth of dialogue throughout the years of schooling” (Wells, 2000, p. 67), whereas recitation persists. Wells attributed the rarity of dialogic discourse to misconceptions about knowledge and learning, in which knowledge was treated as a commodity owned by teachers, and to be transmitted to the pupils. Educators and policy makers who hold this view treat dialogic classroom discourse as “an unnecessary waste of time” (Wells, 2000, p. 67).

There are additional factors that inhibit dialogic discourse. For example, Aukerman (2007) mentioned pressures of accountability, evolving from national policies, such as the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) in the United States, as a possible reason behind a univocal instructional approach.

Another possible inhibitor of dialogic discourse is low teacher expectations. Chinn et al. (2001) speculated that the teachers who participated in their study retained control over topic and turns because they felt that the students did not have the skills (e.g., critical reasoning, finding evidence, posing challenging assumptions, etc.) necessary for control of topic and turns. Lefstein and Snell (2014) quoted one of the teachers who participated in a professional development program designed to foster dialogic teaching:

Well, it depends on the ability of the children. You’ve got two children who are quite bright and articulate, but you’ve got a lot of the class that are not. And asking them to take over, you wouldn’t get the same sort of dialogic [teaching and learning] going on. (p. 142)

Of course, just as low expectations might hinder dialogic discourse, high expectations might promote it. The latter might be the case in classes of gifted students, but it awaits further research to be corroborated.

Furthermore, research indicates that student tracking affects quantity and quality of instruction (e.g., Applebee et al., 2003; Goodman & Mizrachi, 2008; Hallinan, 1994). According to Applebee et al. (2003), in the united States, “instruction is unequally distributed by track level” (p. 694), with dialogic discourse more prominent in higher tracks than in lower tracks. “The observed maximum for average minutes of open discussion per hour in low-track classes was 3.7, as opposed to 14.5 minutes in high-track classes” (p. 719). Classes of gifted students can be seen as the highest academic track. ² Therefore, it makes sense to assume that discourse would be more dialogic in these classes.

Misconceptions, accountability pressures, low expectations, and low academic tracking are only a few of the numerous factors that might inhibit dialogic discourse. However, according to Burbules and Bruce (2002), IRE is so strongly entrenched that some “teachers fall into [IRE patterns] even when they imagine that their teaching is dialogical in nature” (p. 1107).

The significance of dialogic discourse for learning and its rareness in mainstream classrooms have motivated many researchers to investigate instructional contexts and practices that do promote dialogic discourse. For example, Aukerman (2007) demonstrated a case of effective dialogic teaching in which a teacher “deliberately abdicated his role as primary knower,” thus pushing the students “into the teacher’s shoes, taking the stance of a knower” (pp. 73-75). Aukerman argued, “The child need not be a primary knower, but needs to recognize herself/himself as someone whose evaluation matters, as a possible knower” (p. 91).

The current study describes a classroom setting in which students were selected on the basis of their intellectual abilities. These students are ipso facto perceived by themselves and by their teachers as “possible knowers.” It is plausible that this might affect interactions in gifted classes, leading to more dialogic discourse in these classes.

This Study

This study focuses on student initiations, on the ways teachers handle these initiations, and on the effect these initiations have on the emergence of dialogic discourse. In the following section, I will present excerpts from my corpus of interactions in gifted classes, exemplifying instances where students initiated talk that provided fertile ground for dialogic discourse to emerge. However, I also demonstrate cases in which teachers in their responses did not follow through on student initiations, rendering discourse primarily univocal, despite student initiations. Finally, I discuss the implications and the limitations of the current study and suggest directions for further research.

Method

Participants and Setting

The data presented in this article are drawn from a corpus of 17 recorded and fully transcribed sessions in classes of gifted students in seven different public schools in Commonwealth of Virginia. Observations were held during the school year 2010-2011. The 17 sessions included 14 different groups of students (3 groups of seventh-grade students were observed and recorded over two sessions). Out of the 14 groups, 5 were fifth grade, 2 sixth grade, 4 seventh grade, and 3 eighth grade. The average number of students per class was 20, ranging from 13 to 27.

Nine teachers participated in the study: six women and three men. The teachers had all received academic training in gifted education. Table 1 summarizes each teacher’s total number of years of teaching experience and number of years of experience teaching classes of gifted students. The average number of years of teaching experience is 22.2 and the average for teaching gifted classes is 9.4.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Teaching Experience, Grades, and Number of Sessions Recorded per Teacher.

Name a	Total no. of years of teaching experience	No. of years teaching gifted/talented	Grade	No. of sessions recorded
Ms. Harris	33	26	5th	1
Ms. Romero	17	17	5th	1
Ms. Campbell	18	2	5th	1
Mr. Peterson	32	2	5th	1
Ms. Hoffman	12	2	5th	1
Mr. Johnson	29	17	7th	3
Mr. Ross	10	2	7th	3
Ms. Osgood	20	11	8th	2
Ms. Raven	29	6	6th	2
			7th	1
			8th	1
	M = 22.2	M = 9.4		Σ = 17

a

All names are pseudonyms.

The classes were composed of students who had all been identified as gifted. In this specific county, to qualify for gifted services, a student must demonstrate exceptional results in at least three of the following measures: (a) scores on nationally normed ability tests, (b) scores on nationally normed achievement tests, (c) class participation and teacher observations, and (d) student work including student portfolios, products, and performances.

Sessions observed were either social sciences or language arts. Teachers were asked to invite the researcher to observe sessions based primarily on whole-class teaching (as opposed to group work or individual work).

Results

In this section, I will present six excerpts (ranging from 37 seconds to 1.20 minutes), each excerpt deliberately taken from a different group of students with a different teacher. The idea was to enable the readers to get a relatively clear picture of the nature of student initiations in the classes observed and the ways in which different teachers handled student initiations.

The excerpts presented in this section demonstrate recurrent discursive patterns related to student initiations. The patterns of student initiations exemplified include the following: unsolicited student initiations, student initiations triggering interaction among students (without the teacher’s mediation), and initiations formed as “what if” questions. I also exemplify in this section recurrent patterns in the teacher’s discourse surrounding student initiations. I will demonstrate teacher strategies that seem to open the floor and make space for student initiations. I will also analyze the different ways teachers handled student initiations and the subsequent effect of teachers’ instructional practices on the emergence of dialogic discourse.

I begin with an excerpt exemplifying unsolicited student initiations. As noted in the literature review above, researchers of classroom discourse often talk about ways of “eliciting” or “soliciting” student talk (e.g., Mortimer & Scott, 2003; Nystrand et al., 2003). Hence, in mainstream classes, teachers often need to work hard to encourage their students to talk. In contrast, in the gifted classes observed in the current study, students very frequently initiated talk, without any soliciting on behalf of the teacher. Here is an excerpt exemplifying this interactional norm.

Excerpt 1 (Figure 1) is taken from Ms. Campbell’s fifth-grade language arts class. ³ In this excerpt, the class is reviewing a homework exercise in which the students were asked about the meanings of various vocabulary items. The format of the exercise is multiple choice. However, unlike regular multiple-choice exercises, in this case each question has more than one correct answer. In the excerpt below, the class is discussing whether the telephone is a modern invention. The excerpt is 37 seconds long. To guarantee confidentiality, participants’ names have been replaced by pseudonyms in the transcripts, and have been altered by filtering the audio files to make these and any other identifying portions of the recordings unrecognizable. Line numbers are retained from the full corpus.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Excerpt 1: I have something to say about that.

In Excerpt 1, we find in line 2230 a “presequence” (Schegloff, 1980) through which Alex requests permission to talk, and thus prefaces his initiation. It is interesting to note that Alex’s preinitiation overlaps with Ms. Campbell’s turn in 2229. This overlap underscores the fact that Alex’s initiation was not triggered by a teacher prompt. In addition, note that by prefacing his initiation, Alex is mitigating the “control act” of gaining control over the floor (cf. prerequests in Blum-Kulka, 1997). In 2232 to 2233, Alex receives Ms. Campbell’s “go ahead,” but interestingly this is latched by another student’s (Denise’s) attempt to initiate talk. Note that Denise’s initiation takes the form of a “what if” question. I will return to this issue in my analysis of Excerpts 5 and 6 below. In 2236, Alex competes with Denise over the floor; in 2237 Alex wins the floor and goes ahead with his topic initiation. Alex then offers a justification for the claim that the telephone is a modern invention. Note, however, that he does so after Ms. Campbell had already accepted this claim (lines 2218-2229), and did not ask for any further justifications. This fact further underscores Alex’s initiation as completely unsolicited. Thus, we see in Excerpt 1 an example of a gifted student initiating talk and making meaningful contributions to the discussion, without any soliciting from the teacher.

Excerpt 2 (Figure 2) also exemplifies unsolicited student initiation. The excerpt is taken from Ms. Hoffman’s fifth-grade language arts class. In this session, the teacher read to the students a story titled The Invisible Child by Tove Jansson. The excerpt is 57 seconds long, and it took place at the very beginning of the lesson (before Ms. Hoffman started reading the story to the students).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Excerpt 2: It can be hard to visualize an invisible kid.

The excerpt starts with a chain of conventional IRE sequences. In lines 216 to 218 Ms. Hoffman initiates a Display Question and assigns Layla to answer this question. In lines 219 to 222, Layla provides a short response, as is often the case with this type of questions. Next, Ms. Hoffman provides low-level evaluation (lines 223-225), and addresses Amelia with an invitation in the form of a question, which opens another IRE sequence. Amelia responds (lines 228-232), and Ms. Hoffman provides evaluation (lines 233-237).

At this point in the lesson, Ms. Hoffman has completed the introductory part and would like to start reading the story. However, a student (Eva) raises her hand, receives permission to talk (line 245), and makes a comment: “It can be hard to visualize .an invisible kid.” Note that Eva’s comment could be seen by Ms. Hoffman as a “face-threatening act” (Brown & Levinson, 1987), since it undermines the logic behind Ms. Hoffman’s instruction “to work on visualizing the story” (lines 211-213). Indeed, we see that Eva’s comment triggers laughter from one of the students (line 249), which intensifies the face-threatening situation. Next, Ms. Hoffman seems somewhat hesitant in her response, evident through the truncated utterance in line 250, and the “u--h” in line 251. Ms. Hoffman then provides a very general response: “Well then, let’s see what the author says,” through which she implies that she would like to start reading the story. Interestingly enough, at this point, it is a student, Dylan, who decides to challenge Eva’s comment, asking Eva, “Was it hard for you to visualize the cat?” (lines 256-258). Dylan’s response is interesting for several reasons. First, to strengthen his argument, he makes use of his prior knowledge, referring to the story Ghost Cat by Donna Hill, which the class had read earlier that year. Second, note that Dylan addresses Eva in second person “you” (line 257). Such student-to-student address is rare in classroom interaction and makes interaction more similar to everyday conversation (Cazden, 1988). To conclude, although Ms. Hoffman’s lesson begins with traditional univocal discourse, not long after, the discursive balance (or rather imbalance) changes. This change is triggered by a student’s initiation, which challenges the teacher’s instruction. This student’s initiation brings about a response by another student, who provides a counterargument. The excerpt thus demonstrates how a student’s initiation can trigger student responses that lead to the emergence of dialogic discourse.

Here is Excerpt 3 (Figure 3) exemplifying student initiation. The excerpt is taken from Ms. Romero’s fifth-grade language arts class. In this session, the students were seated on a carpet, as Ms. Romero read to them the story The Invisible Child by Tove Jansson. Although reading the story, Ms. Romero stopped here and there to ask questions or make comments. The students raised their hands if they had any questions or comments. The excerpt is 1.20 minutes long.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Excerpt 3: When you’re invisible, can stuff go through you?

At the beginning of the excerpt, Ms. Romero is reading to the students. When Ms. Romero reads the word “Cheerio” (line 1283) we see that both the students and Ms. Romero laugh (lines 1284-1285), and make comments: “intellectual,” “kind of European” (lines 1286-1288, 1291). Their laughter and comments indicate not only their enjoyment of the story but also their metalinguistic awareness, since the word cheerio is currently infrequently used in American English. Then, in lines 1290 to 1295, a student (Brian) raises a question: “When you’re invisible, can stuff go through you?” Once again, as in Excerpt 1, the student’s question overlaps with the teacher’s words, and it is clear that the question was not solicited by any teacher prompt but rather was motivated by the student’s involvement and enthusiasm. It is also clear that the teacher is not perceived as the single interpretive authority, since many students also respond to Brian’s question (lines 1296-1318). In lines 1311 to 1312, Ms. Romero seems to be trying to end the discussion and go back to reading the story, but the students want to continue talking about the issue raised earlier. In 1319 to 1321 Ms. Romero explicitly says that she would like to continue reading the story. In 1324, she manages to continue reading—but not for long. Ms. Romero gets a chance to read no more than a single sentence before another student raises her hand, requesting permission to talk. Note that Ms. Romero makes room for student initiations and lets the students speak when they raise their hands. In 1331, Andrea raises a question: “Are these animals?” which is followed again by both teacher and student attempts to answer the question. In line 1351, it seems that Ms. Romero is trying again to go back to reading the story, but then another student overlaps with her (line 1352) and makes a comment, which is based on his background knowledge (“Even in McDonald’s in Norway they had Moomin toys”). Hence, this segment is a good example of student initiations leading to the emergence of dialogic discourse, as meaning is being generated by both students and teacher (Knuth & Peressini, 2001; Lotman, 1988).

Excerpt 4 (Figure 4) also exemplifyies student initiation leading to dialogic discourse. The segment is taken from Ms. Osgood’s eighth-grade social sciences class. The session took place the day after the 2011 midterm elections. In this segment, Danny raises the question of hazard pay in the military, an issue that had been discussed some 4 minutes earlier. The segment is 37 seconds long.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Excerpt 4: So anyway, questions, concerns, comments.

During the 4 minutes prior to the segment presented (not presented here for sake of brevity), Ms. Osgood did most of the talking, and very little discussion occurred. In the immediately preceding discourse, she talked about tax exemption for the elderly. After talking for a relatively long stretch, it seems that Ms. Osgood makes a conscious decision to open the floor for student initiations. It is interesting to note the strategy Ms. Osgood employs for that purpose. Unlike traditional sequences of IRE, in which teachers initiate specific questions (see, e.g., beginning of Excerpt 2 above), here Ms. Osgood merely asks for the students’ thoughts. The practice of opening the floor for the students’ comments, without specifying the exact topic and without assigning the question to a specific student, passes control over the topic and turns from teacher to students, creating a more balanced conversational setting. We see in Excerpt 4 that Danny chooses to go back to an issue that had come up earlier. Note also the “if” format (to be discussed below) of Danny’s initiation (lines 2808-2815). ⁴ Then, another student, Josh, overlaps with Danny (line 2828) and initiates a personal narrative, related to the issue of hazard pay. Thus, opening the floor for students’ initiations allows students to self-select and take the discussion in directions that they find interesting.

In the gifted classes observed, teachers often forwent their full control and thus made room for student initiations that often led to dialogic discourse. As noted in the introduction, Chinn et al. (2001) speculate that the teachers who participated in their study retained control over topic and turns because they felt that the students did not have the skills necessary for assuming such control. This goes back to the issue of teacher expectations and its possible influence on classroom interactions. Teachers in heterogeneous classes have mixed expectations from their students. In contrast, it makes sense to assume that teachers in gifted classes have high expectations from their students, and these expectations might affect the instructional strategies teachers employ. In other words, it seems plausible that teachers in gifted classes are not hesitant to pass control over topics and turns to their students, because they feel confident that their students have the skills necessary for assuming such control. By passing control, teachers make room for student initiations (e.g., Excerpt 4), which in turn often lead to dialogic discourse.

Another interesting finding regarding student initiations in the gifted classes observed is that these initiations often take the form of “what if” questions. Consider Excerpt 5 (Figure 5), spanning over 54 seconds:

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Excerpt 5: Wait! What if . . .?

The excerpt is taken from Mr. Ross’s eighth-grade, social sciences class. In the previous lesson, the students read 16 short articles about the treaty signed in 1868 between the American settlers and the Native Americans. The students summarized the articles in a table. In the current session, the class is reviewing the table together, while the teacher is typing the students’ answers in a table projected on a screen.

Note that lines 1489 to 1509 are characterized by univocal discourse following the traditional IRE sequence. In line 1489 Mr. Ross initiates a Display Question, and subsequently in 1491 to 1495 the students try to provide the correct response, which is followed in 1496 to 1502 by teacher evaluation and another teacher initiation. The students and the teacher are searching for a very specific answer. This is evident in the students’ discourse by the relatively long pause (line 1491) after the teacher’s question and before the students’ answers, and in the rising intonation following Hannah’s answer in 1495. It is also evident in the teacher’s evaluation (lines 1496-1502), which is mitigated but negative (pause, “uh,” “well,” “but”). Mr. Ross then explicitly declares that he’s looking for “one thing in particular” (line 1501). At this point Hannah seems somewhat frustrated by the guessing game (line 1503), whereas Joan uses her sense of humor as a leeway (lines 1505-1506), which is appreciated both by Mr. Ross (lines 1507-1508) and by the students (line 1509).

Normally, we would expect at this point another sequence of IRE. In contrast, we see here (line 1510) that initiative comes from a student, rather than from the teacher. Once again, student initiation (in line 1510) is not preceded by any teacher prompt. In addition, initiation takes the form of a “what if” question. As noted above, one of the findings of the current research is that “what if” questions were prevalent in the gifted students’ discourse. This finding fits in nicely with the claim that gifted children are competent at “extrapolating knowledge to new situations” and often “go beyond what is taught” (Davis, Rimm, & Siegle, 2011, p. 33).

However, note that despite student initiation the teacher insists on curtailing the discussion and focusing on the task of completing the table. It is also interesting that the student (Joan) is quite persistent in expressing her opinion. Indeed, after Mr. Ross does not follow up on Joan’s contribution, she does so herself (line 1517). The teacher ignores Joan’s follow-up, and goes back to completing the table (lines 1518-1525). But Joan does not give up easily (line 1526-1528). Of course, it is the teacher, who makes the final call. This supports Nystrand and Gamoran’s (1991b) claim that although classroom discussions require reciprocity between teacher and students, the teacher plays a key role in making room for (or in this case curtailing) discussions.

Nystrand and Gamoran (1991a) defined two different types of classroom engagement: “procedural” and “substantive.” Procedural engagement “reflects an accommodation to classroom rules regulations,” whereas substantive engagement means that the students are highly involved and enthusiastic about learning (p. 262). In Excerpt 5, it is quite ironic that Joan, a student, shows substantive engagement, whereas the teacher shows and encourages procedural engagement. By encouraging procedural engagement, the teacher also inhibits the emergence of dialogic discourse.

We see, then, that student initiations do not guarantee the emergence of dialogic discourse. In the gifted classes observed, students frequently initiated the talk. At this junction, discourse may develop in two different ways: (a) As demonstrated in Excerpts 1 to 4, student initiations may indeed lead to dialogic discourse, provided the teacher allows or tolerates this development, or (b) as demonstrated in Excerpts 5 above and 6 (Figure 6) below, student initiations might meet with teachers’ resistance and subsequently not culminate in dialogic discourse.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

Excerpt 6: This is a good “what if” question, right?

Excerpt 6 is another passage exemplifying student initiation in the form of a “what if” question. The excerpt is 40 seconds long, taken from Ms. Raven’s eighth-grade social sciences class.

In this segment, the class is discussing eligibility to run for president of the United States. Some 10 lines earlier the class was a bit rowdy in discussing John F. Kennedy’s age at the time that he was elected for president. Ms. Raven’s comment in lines 937 to 943 regarding the standardized tests might be an attempt to make sure that the students are paying attention rather than continuing the discussion about Kennedy’s age. It also indicates that teachers of gifted students are not free of “accountability pressures” discussed in the introduction and that these pressures might inhibit the development of dialogic discourse despite student initiations.

In line 944, Ms. Raven nominates Danny as the next speaker. Danny initiates a “what if” question. Again, the student’s initiation is completely unsolicited. In line 948, Ms. Raven interrupts Danny before he has had a chance to finish his question. Interestingly, Ms. Raven presumes that Danny’s question does not qualify as “a good ‘what if’ question” (lines 948-950), and that it is probably offtrack, such as “I’m walking down the hall, and I’m gonna fall into the center of the earth, and . . .” (lines 953-956). Hence, Ms. Raven seems to be implying that Danny, and perhaps other gifted students, have a tendency to ask offtrack “what if” questions. The class seems quite amused by this implication (line 957), but Danny seems rather annoyed (lines 951 and 958) and insists on asking his question. Ms. Raven then gives Danny a “go ahead” (lines 959-960), and he proceeds with his question. But his question is, in the teacher’s words, not “solid” enough (line 979), evident by repetition of the hedging discourse marker “like” (lines 962, 965, 966), indicating lack of speaker commitment (Ziv, 1998), a hedging “I guess” (line 966), a truncated utterance (line 967), and frequent pauses (lines 966, 971). The students then laugh (line 973) because they realize that Danny’s question does not meet the teacher’s criteria of “a good ‘what if’ question.” Indeed, Ms. Raven eventually does not let Danny complete his question. Excerpt 6 thus illustrates the students’ discursive initiative, on one hand, and the teacher’s lack of tolerance for these initiatives, on the other.

Studies indicated that exceptional teachers of gifted students tended to share personality styles with their gifted students and differ in their personality styles from teachers in regular classes (e.g., Cross, Neumeister, & Cassady, 2007; Mills, 2003). These researchers also argued that a match between the teacher’s and the pupils’ personality styles could lead to more effective learning, whereas a mismatch might lead to misunderstandings and impediment of learning. Excerpts 5 and 6 might be cases of a mismatch in discursive styles between teacher and students. It is important to note, however, that the current study describes discursive patterns but neither offers any evaluations of learning nor draws any conclusions regarding effectiveness of teaching. It follows from my discourse analysis that in some cases we find tension between teacher and student discursive styles, such as when the students want to engage in dialogic discourse, whereas the teacher is more task oriented and inhibits dialogic discourse. The effect of such clashes on learning awaits further research.

Discussion

The main purpose of the excerpts presented is to highlight instances when students initiated talk and how teachers handled these cases. The excerpts demonstrate that when teachers employed instructional practices that passed control over topics and turns to the students, these practices opened the floor for student initiations, created a more balanced interactional setting, and contributed to the development of dialogic discourse. In contrast, I demonstrated other instructional practices, such as teachers’ reactions to student initiations, which seemed to inhibit the development of dialogic discourse in the classes observed.

Note that I did not observe significant differences in discursive patterns between language arts versus social sciences. ⁵ I also did not find grade to be a defining factor. That is, students frequently initiated talk regardless of their age or of curricular area. Furthermore, student initiations and subsequent dialogic discourse seemed as likely to develop regardless of whether students were seated on the carpet (e.g., Excerpt 3) or in rows by their desks (e.g., Excerpt 4).

An important finding of the current study is that despite variability in teaching styles, frequent student initiations are evident in all classes observed. This finding suggests that this discursive phenomenon might be characteristic of gifted students, regardless of whether teaching is dialogic or univocal in nature. If indeed so, it is important that teachers of gifted students become aware of this interactional pattern. Such awareness could lower the possibility that teachers interpret frequent student initiations as face-threatening acts.

However, a note of caution is due at this point. The prevalence of student initiations in the classes observed is not necessarily a direct result of the students’ giftedness. Other factors, such as classroom atmosphere and interactional norms set in previous classes, may have created the interactional conditions in which students feel free to initiate talk. Similar conditions might therefore be found in mainstream classes as well.

Hence, the study has implications not only for teachers of gifted classes but also for teachers of mainstream classes. The study indicates that when teachers forgo control over topics and turns, they allow students to self-select and raise topics that they (the students) find interesting. For example, opening the floor for student initiations without asking a specific question assigned to a specific student, as is skillfully done by Ms. Osgood (see Excerpt 4), could be as effective in mainstream classes as it is in gifted classes. Indeed, Boyd and Markarian (2011) demonstrated how a teacher of a mainstream class merely needed to call on a student by his name for that student to provide an elaborate response. It follows that strategies that make room for student initiations in gifted classes could have a similar effect in mainstream classes.

Admittedly, the study has certain limitations. First, the size of the corpus used for the study is limited. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first microanalysis of discursive patterns in classes of gifted students. However, a larger database is needed before any generalizations regarding discourse in gifted classes can safely be made. Second, the study uses findings from previous studies of discourse in mainstream classes as a baseline. However, to reach more definitive conclusions regarding the similarities and differences between gifted and mainstream classes, it is necessary to conduct a full-fledged comparative study, preferably with the same teachers teaching both types of classes, and to have both types of classes observed within the same schools. Finally, the study is qualitative and does not offer frequencies of the discursive phenomena observed. All these issues await further research before they are resolved.

Conclusion

To conclude, this study provides a microanalysis of student initiations in gifted classes and their effect on the emergence of dialogic discourse. Student initiations trigger not only teacher responses but also student responses that often lead to additional student initiations. All these options give rise to a more balanced classroom setting, in which meaning is created by both teacher and student, amounting to dialogic discourse as defined by Lotman (1988).

I have also highlighted instructional practices that promote or inhibit student initiations and the subsequent emergence of dialogic discourse. For example, when teachers invite students’ comments, without specifying a question or topic, students have an opportunity to initiate talk and take the discussion in directions that are of interest to them. In contrast, when students try to go beyond what is taught but the teacher opts to limit the discussion (e.g., via procedural engagement), such instructional practices do not allow student initiations to develop into dialogic discourse.

The study thus indicates that the preponderance of student initiations in the gifted classes observed sets a fertile ground for the emergence of dialogic discourse. The students within the setting of the gifted classroom seem inclined to take an active role and frequently initiate academic talk. Of course, individual teacher influence must also be taken into consideration. Some of the teachers observed created more interactional space for student initiations than did others. I have demonstrated that, when provided the space, the students initiated talk, and dialogic discourse was witnessed. If indeed, as argued by Westberg et al. (1993), gifted students receive little differentiation of verbal interactions when placed in mainstream classes, it follows from the results of the current study that gifted classes might better cater for the interactional needs of the gifted learner.