Conversational Maxims and Scaffolded Learning in Children with Learning Disabilities

Abstract

In our commentary on Stone's (this issue) article on the metaphor of “scaffolding,” we propose (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) the “flying buttress” as an improvement. Unlike a scaffold, the buttress symbolizes a nontemporary architectural device that begins as a support to building new knowledge on an existing foundation, but then itself becomes an integral and evolving part of the new structure. We then analyze scaffolded instruction as a kind of conversation that depends on rather sophisticated shared assumptions about the agenda and the rules underlying the process of the conversation, including an understanding of when these rules are suspended. We present evidence that some children with language/learning disabilities may not benefit from scaffolded instruction because they (a) follow a different agenda during instructional discourse (e.g., to camouflage their lack of comprehension); and (b) overrely on the default Gricean Maxims that cooperative speakers always make an effort to be informative, truthful, relevant, and clear.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognitio. (pp. 21–34). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Day, J. , & Cordon, L. (1993). Static and dynamic measures of ability: An experimental comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 75–82.

Dickinson, D. (1984). First impressions: Children's knowledge of words gained from a single exposure. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 359–373.

Donahue, M. (1984). Learning disabled children's conversational competence: An attempt to activate the inactive listener. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 21–35.

Donahue, M. (1994). Differences in classroom discourse styles of students with learning disabilities. In D. Ripich & N. Creaghead (Eds.), School discours. (pp. 229–261). San Diego, CA: Singular Press.

Donahue, M. (1997). Beliefs about listening in students with learning disabilities: “Is the speaker always right?” Topics in Language Disorder., 17, 441–460.

Donahue, M. , Pearl, R. , & Bryan, T. (1980). Learning disabled children's conversational competence: Responses to inadequate messages. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 387–403.

Englert, C.S. , Rozendal, M. , & Mariage, M. (1994). Fostering the search for understanding: A teacher's strategies for leading cognitive development in “zones of proximal development.” Learning Disability Quarterl., 17, 187–204.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech act. (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

10.

Lopez-Reyna, N. (1996). The importance of meaningful contexts in bilingual special education: Moving to whole language. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 120–131.

11.

Mosten, S. (1987). The suggestibility of children in interview studies. First Language, 7, 67–78.

12.

Osborne, R. , & Freyberg, R. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children's science. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.

13.

Rueda, R. , & Mehan, H. (1986). Metacognition and passing: Strategic interactions in the lives of students with learning disabilities. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 17, 145–165.

14.

Siegal, M. (1991). Knowing children: Experiments in conversation and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

15.

Spinelli, F. , & Ripich, D. (1985). A comparison of classroom and clinical discourse. In D. Ripich & F. Spinelli (Eds.), School discourse problem. (pp. 179–196). San Diego, CA: College-Hill.