Research on traditional classrooms paints a picture of teachers controlling talk patterns and of students producing minimal amounts of mainly procedural talk, recitation-type talk, or both. Often this bleak state of affairs is attributed to teachers' overreliance on unauthentic display questions—questions that impose tight thematic control and therefore purportedly promote recitation rather than classroom dialogue. Contrary to this blanket indictment of display questions, however, a small number of previous studies have concluded that teacher display questions are not inherently inimical to engaged student talk. This study examined a small 4th-and 5th-grade English language learner classroom in which students were previously found to have produced a substantial number of socially engaged and structurally elaborated utterances. A new analysis of thematic episodes containing instances of extended student talk revealed that authenticity of teacher questions was not a necessary condition for triggering such student utterances. Indeed, text-based display questions that inquired about details of readings obviously known to the teacher elicited elaborated responses. The distinguishing characteristic of teacher questions that elicited extended student talk was found to be their contingency on previous student utterances rather than whether they were open-ended or inquired about known information.
References
1.
AlmasiJ. (1996). A new view of discussion. In GambrellL.AlamasiJ. (Eds.), Lively discussions: Fostering engaged reading (pp. 2–24). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
2.
AlvermannD.DillonD.O'BrienD. (1987). Using discussion to promote reading comprehension.Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
3.
AlvermannD.PhelpsS. (2005). Content reading and literacy.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
ApplebeeA.LangerJ.NystrandM.GamoranA. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685–730.
5.
BloomeD.Egan-RobertsonA. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 305–333.
6.
BoydM. (2000). Classroom discourse conditions for engendering elaborated talk in elementary school ESoL instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
7.
BoydM.RubinD. (2002). Elaborated student talk in an elementary ESoL classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36, 495–530.
8.
BrittonJ. (1990). Talking to learn. In BarnesD.BrittonJ.TorbeM. (Eds.), Language, the learner and the school (pp. 91–130). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. (Original work published 1969).
9.
CanaleM.SwainM. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
10.
CazdenC. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
11.
ChinnC.AndersonR.WaggonerM. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411.
12.
ChristophJ.NystrandM. (2001). Taking risks, negotiating relationships: One teacher's transition toward a dialogic classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36, 249–286.
13.
CullenR. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: The importance of the f-move. ELT Journal, 56, 117–127.
14.
ErnstG. (1994). “Talking circles”: Conversation and negotiation in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 293–322.
15.
FlandersN. A. (1973). Basic teaching skills derived from a model of speaking and listening. Journal of Teacher Education, 24(1), 24–37.
16.
GaldaL.CullinanB. (2002). Literature and the child (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
17.
GambrellL.AlmasiJ. (1996). Lively discussions: Fostering engaged reading.Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
18.
GlesneC.PeshkinA. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction.New York: Longman.
19.
GoodwinC.DurantiA. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In DurantiA.GoodwinC. (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 1–42). New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
GutierrezK. (1994). How talk, context, and script, shape contexts for learning: A cross-case comparison of journal sharing. Linguistics and Education, 5, 335–365.
21.
HeinzB. (1996). Kayuktuk: An arctic quest.Hong Kong: Chronicle Books.
22.
HymesD. (1972). On communicative competence. In PrideJ.HolmesJ. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
23.
HyndsS. (1992). Challenging questions in the teaching of literature. In LangerJ. (Ed.), Literature instruction: A focus on student response (pp. 78–100). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
24.
HyndsS.RubinD. (Eds.). (1990). Perspectives on talking and learning.Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
25.
JohnsonK. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms.New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
KachurR.PrendergastC. (1997). A closer look at authentic interaction: Profiles of teacher-student talk in two classrooms. In NystrandM. (Ed.), Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom (pp. 75–88). New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
KamberelisG. (2001). Producing heteroglossic classroom (micro)cultures through hybrid discourse practice. Linguistics and Education, 12, 85–125.
28.
Le CompteM.PreissleJ. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research.Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
29.
LysterR. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.
30.
MarshallP.SmagorinskyP.SmithM. (1995). The language of interpretation: Patterns of discourse in discussions of literature (NCTE Research Rep. No. 27). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
31.
MehanH. (1979). “What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory Into Practice, 18, 285–294.
32.
MosenthalP. (1984). The effect of classroom ideology on children's production of narrative text. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 679–689.
33.
NassajiH.WellsG. (2000). What's the use of triadic dialogue? An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21, 376–406.
34.
NystrandM. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom.New York: Teachers College Press.
35.
NystrandM. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 392–412.
36.
NystrandM.GamoranA. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261–290.
37.
NystrandM.WuL.GamoranA.ZeisenerA.LongD. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35, 135–196.
38.
OgleD. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564–570.
39.
PeregroyS.BoyleO. (2005). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for K—12 teachers.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
40.
PicaT. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
41.
RosenblattL. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1978).
42.
RubinD. (1990). Introduction: Ways of talking about talking and learning. In HyndsS.RubinD. (Eds.), Perspectives on talk and learning (pp. 1–20). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
43.
SheldonD. (1991). The whales' song.New York: Penguin.
44.
SmagorinskyP.FlyP. (1993). The social environment of the classroom: A Vygotskian perspective on small group process. Communication Education, 42, 159–171.
45.
SnowC. E.Hoefnagel-HohleM. (1982). School-age second language learners' access to simplified linguistic input. Language Learning, 32, 411–430.
46.
SoterA.RudgeL. (2005, April). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
47.
SwainM. (1994, October). Three functions of output in second language learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
48.
VaccaR.VaccaJ. (2005). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
49.
VygotskyL. (1994). Thought and language.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1986).
50.
WebbN. M.FarivarS. H.MastergeorgeA. M. (2002). Productive helping in cooperative groups. Theory Into Practice, 41, 13–20.
51.
WellsG. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1–37.
52.
WellsG.WellsChang G. L. (1992). Constructing knowledge together: Classrooms as centers of inquiry and literacy.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
53.
WilkinsonI. (2005, April). Making sense of group discussions designed to promote high-level comprehension of texts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
54.
WilkinsonI.MurphyK.SoterA. (2005, April). Making sense of group discussions designed to promote high-level comprehension of texts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
