40 Classroom Discourse and Interaction: Reading ...

Classroom Discourse and Interaction 571

40

Classroom Discourse and Interaction: Reading Across the Traditions LESLEY REX AND JUDITH GREEN

In this chapter, we present a broad range of traditions that have shaped new directions in the study of classroom interaction as a discursive process. From this perspective, discourse – language above the level of single utterance or sentence – is central to the study of teaching and learning interactions. Although some researchers investigate classroom interaction without discourse as a theoretical or methodological tool, and others examine classroom discourse as texts, we present those traditions that view discourse as language-in-use and that seek to make visible how the linguistic and discourse choices of participants in classroom interaction are consequential for students learning in classrooms.

An Overview of Distinctions between Classroom Interactions and Classroom Discourse Historically, the study of classroom discourse and the study of classroom interaction have different theoretical roots and methodological logics. Classroom discourse studies seek to make visible how everyday life in classrooms is constituted in and through the linguistic and discourse choices of participants; how language brought to and constructed in classrooms is consequential for social and academic knowledge construction; and, how language use shapes, and is shaped by, processes, practices, and content demands of the curriculum. In contrast, studies of classroom interaction generally examine behaviors and strategies used by teachers and students, with the notable exception of research grounded in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Classroom interaction researchers generally investigate which behaviors and strategies are correlated with student performance measures or student learning indices. Recent reviews of different traditions, their epistemological bases and theoretical orientations, make visible how the naming of phenomena such as

THOC40

571

8/8/07, 2:53 PM

572

Lesley Rex and Judith Green

discourse and classroom interaction leads to different understandings of what is accomplished in classrooms. In a recent review, Rex, Steadman, and Graciano (2006) identified seven research perspectives between 1960 and 2005. Each had a different theoretical and epistemological history and purpose: processproduct; cognitive; socio-cognitive, situated cognition and activity theory; ethnographic; sociolinguistics and discourse analysis; critical; and teacher research. All of these programs of research purport to study classroom interactions, but not all focus on discourse. Further within and across all of these categories except process-product, discourse, where used, is approached differently according to the conceptualization of classrooms and the phenomena of interest in those disciplines. A review by Green and Dixon (in press) examined the roots of classroom interaction, classroom discourse, and situated learning, locating early beginnings of classroom interaction research (1920–60) in work in social psychology and sociology. Across these traditions, classroom interaction was viewed as behavior, and language as a marker of psychological processes (e.g., affective and cognitive), indicative of social variables needed to improve learning (e.g., authoritative versus democratic, effective teaching practices) (e.g., Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). This work was known as research on teaching, process-product research, or interaction analysis in classrooms. A priori coding systems were used (e.g., Rosenshine & Furst, 1986) and language was opaque, viewed as representative of pedagogical/cognitive behaviors. By 1974, the focus of this work expanded to include advances in theory and methodology in fields such as linguistics, child language, conversation analysis, ethnomethodology, ethnography of communication, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and sociology. Grounded in these disciplinary traditions, education researchers conducted studies of relationships between language in the home and school, disciplinary demands of language use in classrooms, and linguistic, social, and cultural presuppositions that shaped language use by students and teachers. Today, education researchers bring traditions of discourse together with sociocultural and critical theories to explore a broad range of phenomena, including identity, knowledge construction, power relationships, policy impact, literacy practices, and disciplinary knowledge. (e.g., Hicks, 1995; Luke, 1995; Mercer, 1995; Knobel, 1999; Cazden, 2001; Wells 2002; Rex, 2006). In the following sections, representative contributions of different traditions are presented to make visible the rich body of work currently available on the study of classroom interactions and classroom discourse.

Fluidity of Society: Growing Diversity and Education To understand why these discourse-based studies became critical to the study of learning in classrooms, post-WWII social contexts of schooling needs to be

THOC40

572

8/8/07, 2:53 PM

Classroom Discourse and Interaction 573 considered. This period marked a change that continues today. Post-WWII demographic characteristics of nations changed as people became more mobile and national populations more fluid (Bauman, 2000). Today, people move from town to town, and from country to country. With these moves schools, classrooms, and other social institutions become sites with greater linguistic, social, and cultural diversity. Further, in the US, laws and policies changed, initiating an ongoing period of desegregation of schooling by race and a need for schools to be responsive to the growing diversity of language learners. In other countries, similar social and political changes have also occurred, influencing directions of research in classrooms. To help educators respond to these changing and diverse student groups and to the complexity of society, researchers grounded in discoursebased traditions constructed new, often interdisciplinary, approaches. These approaches are being used to understand how discourse processes and practices, as well as language use in classrooms, supports and constrains equity of access to academic institutions and to academic and social knowledge. As a consequence, rather than the earlier focus on language behavior, form, function, or deficit, these new interdisciplinary approaches provide ways of exploring discourse as constituting and constitutive of social contexts, social and academic identities, academic knowledge, disciplinary practices, as well as teaching and learning as social and discursive phenomena both in and out of school. These approaches also provide new ways to examine the complex cognitive processes involved in student oral, written, and graphic performances across events, times, and contexts for learning.

Major Theoretical Traditions Framing the Study of Discourse and Classroom Interaction Traditions in this section represent clusters of programs of research that over the past four decades have become central to the work on classroom discourse and interaction. We have clustered traditions with overlapping or concordant assumptions about the nature of discourse and interaction. Though in their home disciplines each tradition is distinct, educational researchers often combine traditions to address complex issues in teaching and learning, a practice that has led to the construction of interdisciplinary approaches. Each cluster of approaches provides a theoretical language and set of methodological practices for conceptualizing, understanding, and studying particular educational issues. These approaches are further made possible by a series of technological advances that support in-depth analysis of classroom talk. These methodological and theoretical advances have recently led to contrastive analyses that demonstrate what the different traditions provide, what questions each addresses, and how each methodology affords researchers the ability to examine particular phenomena (Green & Harker, 1988; Hornberger & Corson, 1997;

THOC40

573

8/8/07, 2:53 PM

574

Lesley Rex and Judith Green

Koschman, 1999; Goldman et al., in press). Additionally, as new traditions and approaches have developed, education researchers have begun to reexamine their data using new theoretical traditions, making visible how different theories influence what they can know about classroom discourse and interaction (Barnes & Todd, 1995).

The child as language user and language learner A collection of theoretical and methodological developments about human language ability across disciplines advanced understandings of classroom discourse. This work, grounded in fields such as psycholinguistics, child language, linguistics, and applied linguistics brought to the fore the creative and learned nature of language for children and adults alike. As the fields of child language and psycholinguistics developed, researchers began to examine closely how children learned the grammar and meanings of language, focusing on the expressive purposes of language and their relationship to language acquisition and development (e.g., Cazden, John, & Hymes, 1972). Research in these fields focused educators’ attention on how children learn language and what was involved in learning how to use the conventional system of grammar, the forms and functions of the language of the home, and how this language was similar to and differed from the language of the school, as well as how children acquired knowledge needed for reading, writing and speaking in classrooms (e.g., Cazden, 1972; Heath, 1983). These traditions focused the attention of researchers, teacher educators, and teachers alike on the knowledge of language that children brought to school and how this knowledge was observable in children’s oral and written communication. They also brought new understandings about how children learn to communicate through the language systems in which they were enculturated prior to beginning formal schooling, and how these systems formed communicative resources for students. Drawing on advances in linguistics and related fields, language-oriented researchers in education were able to frame studies of how children, in and through their interactions with others across educational contexts (home, school, community), acquired the rules of language, the sound systems, and their meanings in their contexts of use. These approaches focused on the moments of language use, creating the need for a shift in the study of classroom interaction from a behaviorist and language-as-opaque approach to research on discourse and language-in-use in classrooms and its consequences for student learning of language and about language (e.g., Green & Wallat, 1981; Halliday, 1985). This work led to explorations of how students learn to read and write in classrooms and to new ways of assessing students’ reading, writing, and speaking performance. (e.g., Chomsky, 1972; Genishi & Dyson, 1984). This early work examined the repertoires for language use students brought to and learned in classrooms. It also shifted educators’ understandings of the creative nature of language and led to new approaches to systematic

THOC40

574

8/8/07, 2:53 PM

Classroom Discourse and Interaction 575 exploration of language use and the contextual nature of meaning (Mishler, 1979). By the late1970s, educators and researchers alike turned their attention to the language of diverse groups of learners, many of whom spoke English as a second language, frequently used code-switching, or spoke a dialect other than school English (e.g., Labov, 1972; Rampton, 2000). Furthermore, as classrooms became linguistically and culturally more complex, new questions arose about ways of understanding language used by students and teachers in classrooms. Classroom discourse, rather than behavior, became a focus of research and theoretical re-examination within and across disciplines (e.g., Cazden, 2001). From this perspective, classroom discourse was understood as a situated phenomenon, in which students draw on linguistic, contextual, and social presuppositions gained from interactions in other social milieus and groups to participate in and interpret the communications of others (Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 1986). This perspective led to the development of research approaches that enabled systematic descriptions of language-in-use. These approaches drew primarily on the use of transcriptions of actual talk rather than on a priori coding systems. These traditions raised questions about what constituted knowledge of language in classroom discourse and interactions. Researchers explored questions about how classroom language (as well as language in other contexts) is learned, what it means to know a language, how first and second languages develop, and what constitutes language learning across semiotic systems in classrooms (reading, writing, speaking). This work has led to reconceptualization of classroom discourse and new challenges for classroom teachers and researchers across disciplines.

Classroom discourse practices and processes in the construction of classroom life Concurrent with research on child as language learner was the development of research traditions examining language in use in classrooms and how language use shaped and was shaped by the ways teacher and students communicated within and across events. These studies led to new understandings of teaching and learning as constituted in and through the discourse choices and communicative practices of teachers and students. This body of work is known as microethnographic and sociolinguistic studies of discourse-in-use in classrooms and other educational settings (Bloome et al., 2004; Erickson, 2004). This work expands the concept of meaning in context to explore how within and across the face-to-face and moment-by-moment interactions, teachers and students construct a language of the classroom (Lin, 1993), which in turn shapes who can say and do what, when and where, for what purposes, in what ways, under what conditions, and with what consequences or outcomes (e.g., Erickson, 1986; Hymes, 1996; Duff, 2002). Drawing on work reconceptualizing context (e.g., Duranti & Goodwin, 1992), education researchers have undertaken microethnographic research in

THOC40

575

8/8/07, 2:53 PM

576

Lesley Rex and Judith Green

classrooms (e.g., Green & Wallat, 1981; Athanases & Heath, 1995; Bloome, et al., 2004). These studies provided new understandings of classroom discourse as situated in moment-to-moment interactions and in over-time, intertextuallytied contexts (e.g., Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993). These studies show how social, historical, linguistic, cognitive, and cultural patterns of practice in classrooms shape and are shaped by the discourse and communicative patterns constructed by members, creating a need to examine micro–macro relationships inside and outside of classrooms); how ways of knowing, being, and doing are constructed in classrooms; and how academic and social identities are socially constructed across times, events, and actors (Heller & MartinJones, 2000). The theoretical and methodological traditions within ethnographic and sociolinguistic research have contributed important understandings of classroom discourse and its impact on what students and teachers construct in classrooms (Cazden et al., 1972; Heath, 1983). These approaches support examination of not only what was said and the actions that accompanied the speech, but also to consider what Gumperz (1992) calls contextualization cues – pitch, stress, pause, juncture, eye gaze, gesture, proxemics, kinesics, lexical items and grammar. Contextualization cues were central to studying meaning and identity construction as well as assessment of academic and social ability (e.g., Cook-Gumperz & Gumperz, 1992). Such research was instrumental in providing alternatives to deficit models of language and in moving beyond difference models to models of how language use, within and across culturally, socially, and lingistically diverse groups, involves wide variations of performance across time, events, and actors (e.g., Collins, 1986; Foster, 1995; Cook-Gumperz, 2006). These studies illustrated that difference in language use is the norm in classrooms and led to new understandings of how the language resources classroom members bring to classrooms are, or are not, supported. Further, it made visible how common knowledge (Edwards & Mercer, 1987) is constructed and how it guides participation and knowledge construction in subsequent times and events. Further, the microethnographic approach has raised new awareness about the units of analysis used to represent ways members construct extended stretches of interaction, patterns of interaction, demands for participating, responses to what is said and done, as well as academic content. Researchers grounded in discourse-based ethnographic studies often bring different theoretical and methodological traditions together to examine complex layers and historical patterns of communication and interaction, depending on the type of text being examined (e.g., oral, written, graphic) (e.g., Green, Harker & Golden, 1987; Gee & Green, 1998). Collectively, microethnographic work provided new understandings of discourse as both a process and a product of local interactions and as intertextually tied to past and future events constituting human activity. Language is both a resource for communication and an outcome of communication across time and events. Prior uses of language (and literacy) are understood to be material resources members draw on to communicate with others, to read

THOC40

576

8/8/07, 2:53 PM

Classroom Discourse and Interaction 577 and interpret what is occurring in the present event under construction, and to support and constrain both the opportunities for learning and what is learned (e.g., Tuyay, Jennings & Dixon, 1995; Vine, 2003). Further, this approach makes visible how disciplinary knowledge is discursively constructed within and across events (e.g., Castanheira et al., 2001; Brown, Reveles & Kelly, & 2005; Street, Baker, & Tomlin, 2005); how curriculum is socially constructed (e.g., Weade, 1987; Chandler, 1992); the status of different languages in linguistically diverse classrooms (e.g., Collins, 1986; O’Connor & Michaels, 1993; Orellana, 1996; Lee, 1997; Willet, Solsken & Wilson-Keenan, 1999; Champion, 2002; Genishi & Gluczynski, 2006); and discourse practices, funds of knowledge and participation structures of indigenous groups (e.g., Philips, 1982; Moll et al., 1992).

From discourse as object to discourse as social processes Concurrent with the development of microethnographic studies, researchers grounded in sociology turned to the developments in sociology and the study of everyday social practices constructed through discourse. This work exerted powerful influences on the study of education as a social, discursive phenomenon. Everyday conversations became the site to study situated social practices. Some sociologists developed methodologies for close analysis of talk-in-action (e.g., Watson, 1992). Others closely observed and described local situated discourse to develop an approach to sociology of language in society (e.g., Goffman, 1981) and in classrooms (e.g., Bernstein, 1975; 1996). With these approaches, researchers began to link local productions of teachers and students to broader social structures in schools and society. This work supported examination of how patterns of classroom life were interactionally produced, how school structures were constituted and configured, and how these related to what students were able to access (e.g., McDermott & Roth, 1978; Mehan, 1979; Heap, 1980). Within this movement, Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology (1967) provided an alternative to then current analytical sociological abstractions, such as the class system, for observing classroom schooling in relation to society. Ethnomethodology explained why members of society routinely acted as they did by observing concrete everyday actions of people as they created social order on their own terms. With its focus on investigating how ordinary, situated actions produce, replicate, and transform social institutions, ethnomethodology provided a means for examining how practices and outcomes of schooling are interactionally constituted (Mehan, 1979). Garfinkel’s approach was complemented by Goffman’s theorization of the role of talk in everyday life (1959). His theory on face-to-face behavior introduced constructs for analyzing classroom discourse that included frame theory, footing and alignment, and different forms of talk (1981).

THOC40

577

8/8/07, 2:53 PM

578

Lesley Rex and Judith Green

Educational researchers adopted conversation analysis (CA), which emerged from ethnomethodological thinking, as a systematic approach for empirically describing classroom talk-in-interaction. Applying the CA approach, researchers examined the sequential interrelated conversation moves of teachers and students by noting the discursive mechanisms they used. By observing turn taking, use of names, and ways members oriented and held each other accountable to what was occurring in patterns of adjacent turns, researchers analyzed how knowledge, identities, and social relationships were interactively produced as social forms. They explored which knowledge was socially meaningful and the ways learning and teaching were enacted. By examining each turn in a sequence as placing a demand for a response on the next, patterns of reflexive actions of teacher and student interactants, and of constituent elements of their interaction, were identified. For example, in the US Mehan (1979) observed a patterned sequence of contingent turns in teacher–student interactions (I-R-E initiation-response-evaluation), which were similar to patterns identified by linguists (Sinclair & Coultard, 1975) in the UK. These interaction patterns were found to be common during instruction and consequential for student participation and knowledge construction, resulting in a particular type of schooling. This situated perspective on classroom discourse framed empirical accounts of what counted as context, engagement, diversity, gender, productivity, and achievement among others within and across different local settings and circumstances. Macbeth’s (2003) review of naturally occurring classroom discourse research credits this naturalistic inquiry approach with being the central innovation in classroom studies in the last 30 years. He also reaffirms the particular contribution of sequential analysis in telling us about the work of instruction, citing the value of understanding successes and failures of “lived orderliness” in minute interactional detail. Such research has described the roles students play in classroom order (e.g., Davies, 1983), reading positions and practices (e.g., Baker & Freebody, 1989; Freebody, Luke & Gilbert, 1991), differential access to literacy instruction (e.g., Baker & Luke, 1991), and effects of testing practices (e.g., Poole, 1994).

Ideology, power, and different orders of scale While ethnomethodology and CA focused attention on the social order under construction in local discursive situations, Bernstein sought to develop a broad sociological theory to explain the role of classroom discourse in what historically had been an intractable societal class hierarchy in the UK. He theorized ways in which curriculum and pedagogic practices acted selectively on those who acquire them (Bernstein, 1975; Bernstein et al., 2001; Atkinson, Davies, & Delamont, 1995; Sadovnik, 1995). Bernstein’s theories, along with theories supporting exploration of negative practices of schooling for particular student groups, influenced new directions in classroom discourse research, particularly in the UK and Australia.

THOC40

578

8/8/07, 2:53 PM

Classroom Discourse and Interaction 579 Beginning in the 1980s, building on Bernstein’s critical sociological theory, linguists and sociologists in education began to explore relationships between local discourse practices and hierachical institutional practices and their consequences for and impact on classroom discourse. Academic, or official institutional, verbal and written school genres were observed to serve gate-keeping functions through which those in power made decisions. For example, by bringing Bernstein’s theories together with the Systemic Functional Linguistics of Halliday (1985), researchers engaged in genre studies to explore how classroom exercise of socially dominant language structures marginalized some students and privileged others. Genres of speech as well as written genres considered appropriate in school were observed to be relatively fixed structures. Students from communities in which dominant schooling genres were practiced were more successful in classroom interactions than were students who practiced less privileged discourse genres. These studies led to new research and pedagogical approaches to teaching genres of power (e.g., Lemke, 1990; Hodge & Kress, 1993; Christie, 1995). In the 1990s, critical discourse analysis approaches (CDA) were developed that made possible studies of the relationship of discourse to power and ideology in classroom interactions and texts (e.g., Fairclough, 1995). From these perspectives power could be viewed in two ways: in terms of asymmetries that exist between participants in discourse events, and in terms of unequal capacity to control the production of texts and how they are distributed and consumed. CDA provided both a theoretical perspective and a methodological approach for examining power–ideology relationships in sociocultural contexts. CDA was applied to observe relationships between texts constructed in local discursive events (oral and/or written) and those created beyond that event (e.g., media, technological, graphic), and others (Ivanic, 1998). By assuming critical situated perspectives, educational researchers from a broad range of traditions have examined different scales of situation – from segments of sequential oral or written discourses to larger units including narratives, genres, and patterned structures across oral and written texts. Such studies have explored how smaller units related to macro structures and how local discourse choices of speakers/writers are drawn from and reinforce discourses within broader sociocultural contexts (e.g., Gee, 1999; Maybin, 2006). These researchers have identified a range of properties of discourse practices and texts they regard as potentially ideological, including features of vocabulary, metaphors, genres, grammatical conventions, style, and discourse strategies (e.g., turn taking, politeness conventions, and topic appropriateness). They illustrated how discourse choices writers or speakers make in constructing texts begin to shape, and then are shaped by, the connected text(s) being constructed such that the writer/speaker/group inscribes an ideological position within the local situation. Issues of choice among discourses, of consciousness of decisions, and of who has access to these choices, for what purposes, and in what ways were shown to be consequential for social naturalization of language and identities. Educational researchers applying related

THOC40

579

8/8/07, 2:53 PM

580

Lesley Rex and Judith Green

critical theories have illuminate discrepancies in official schooling discourses and those who become marginalized and disenfranchised (e.g., Gutierrez, Baquedano, Lopez, & Tejeda, 2000).

Conclusions: Some Philosophical and Epistemological Distinctions Understandings of classroom discourse and interactions have changed across disciplines and time as new theories developed. Today, an extensive body of research exists. This wealth of information brings new challenges, however. The concept of expressive potential (Strike, 1974) provides a way of distinguishing among these contributions. The expressive potential of each tradition is defined by its questions, by its descriptive and evidentiary processes, and its claims and results through particular language and genres. Each tradition, therefore, constitutes a particular language and area of study, affording researchers and educators particular knowledge and approaches for studying classroom discourse. The challenge facing educators is to examine how these different traditions may be used in complementary ways to construct new understandings of the consequences of classroom discourse and interactions.

REFERENCES Athanases, S. Z. & Heath, S. B. (1995). Ethnography in the study of teaching and learning of English, Research in the Teaching of English, 29(3), 263–287. Atkinson, P., Davies, B., & Delamont, S. (1995). Discourse and Reproduction: Essays in Honor of Basil Bernstein. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Baker, C. & Freebody, P. (1989). Children’s First School Books: Introductions to the Culture of Literacy. New York: Blackwell. Baker, C. & Luke, A. (eds.). (1991). Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. Barnes, D. & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and Learning Revisited: Creating Meaning through Talk. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, Heinemann. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity. Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, Codes, and Control: Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology of Language. New York: Schocken Books. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, and Critique. London: Taylor & Francis. Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 305–333. Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2004). Discourse Analysis and the Study of Language and Literacy Events: A Microethnographic Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

THOC40

580

8/8/07, 2:53 PM

Classroom Discourse and Interaction 581 Brown, B., Reveles, J., & Kelly, G. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 779–802. Castanheira, M., Crawford, T., Green, J., & Dixon, C. (2001). Interactional ethnography: An approach to studying the social construction of literate practices. Linguistics and Education, 11(4), 353–400. Cazden, C. (1972), Child Language and Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom Discourse: The Learning of Teaching and Learning (2nd edn.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cazden, C. B., John, V. P., & Hymes, D. (eds.). (1972). Functions of Language in the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Champion, T. (2002). Understanding Storytelling among African American Children. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chandler, S. (1992). Questions when viewing classroom learning from a sociocultural curriculum perspective. In H. Marshall (ed.), Redefining Student Learning: Roots of Educational Change (pp. 33–58). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure. Harvard Educational Review, 42(1), 1–33. Christie, F. (1995). Pedagogic discourse in the primary school. Linguistics and Education, 7, 221–242. Collins, J. (1986). Differential treatment in reading instruction. In J. Cook-Gumperz (ed.), The Social Construction of Literacy (pp. 138–164). New York: Cambridge University. Cook-Gumperz, J. (1986). The Social Construction of Literacy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cook-Gumperz, J. & Gumperz, J. (1992). Changing views of language in education: Implications for literacy research. In J. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil, & W. Shanahan (eds.), Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Literacy Research (pp. 151–179). Urbana, IL: NCTE. Cook-Gumperz, J. (2006). The Social Construction of Literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corsaro, W. (1994). Discussion, debate, and friendship processes: Peer discourse in U.S. and Italian nursery schools. Sociology of Education, 67(1), 1–26. Davies, B. (1983). The role pupils play in the social construction of classroom order. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41, 55–69. Duff, (2002) The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 289–322. Dunkin, M. J. & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The Study of Teaching. New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston. Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (eds.) (1992). Rethinking Context. New York: Cambridge University. Edwards, A. D. & Mercer, N. (1987). Common Knowledge. London: Methuen. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd edn., pp.119–1611). New York: Macmillan. Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Longman. Foster, M. (1995). Talking that talk: The language of control, curriculum, and critique. Linguistics and Education, 7, 129–150.

THOC40

581

8/8/07, 2:53 PM

582

Lesley Rex and Judith Green

Freebody, P., Luke, A., & Gilbert, P. (1991). Reading positions and practices in the classroom. Curriculum Inquiry, 21, 435–457. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gee, J. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. New York: Routledge. Gee, J. & Green, J. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–170. Genishi, C. & Dyson, A. (1984). Analyzing the Language of the Young Child. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Genishi, C. & Gluczynski, T. (2006). Language and literacy research: Multiple methods and perspectives. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (eds.), Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. (in press). Video Research in the Learning Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Green, J. L. & Dixon, C. (in press). Classroom interaction and situated learning. In M. Martin-Jones & A.-M. de Meija (eds.) Encyclopedia of Language Education: Discourse and Education (pp. 1–12). The Netherlands: Springer. Green, J. L. & Harker, J. O. (eds.). (1988). Multiple Perspective Analyses of Classroom Discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Green, J. L. & Wallat, C. (eds.) (1981). Ethnography and Language in Educational Settings. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Green, J. L., Harker, J. O., & Golden, J. M. (1987). Lessson construction: Differing views. In G. W. Noblit & W. T. Pink (eds.), Schooling in Social Context: Qualitative Studies (pp. 46–77). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Gumperz, J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context (pp. 229–252). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1986). Interactional linguistics in the study of schooling. In J. Cook-Gumperz (ed.), The Social Construction of Literacy (pp. 50–75). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gutierrez, K. D., Baquadano-Lopez, T., & Tejada, C. (2000). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, & Activity, 6(4), 286–303. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold. Heap, J. L. (1980). What counts as reading? Limits to certainty in assessment. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(3), pp. 265–292. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Heller, M. & Martin-Jones, M. (eds.) (2000). Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference. London: Ablex. Hicks, D. (1995). Discourse, learning and teaching. In M. Apple (ed.), Review of Research in Education, 21 (pp. 49–95). Washington, DC: AERA. Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1993). Language as Ideology. New York: Routledge. Hornberger, N. & Corson, D. (1997). Research Methods In Language And Education. Boston, MA: Kluwer. Hymes, D. (1996). Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Toward an Understanding of Voice. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. New York: Benjamins.

THOC40

582

8/8/07, 2:53 PM

Classroom Discourse and Interaction 583 Knobel, M. (1999). Everyday Literacies: Students, Discourse, and Social Practice. New York: Peter Lang. Koschmann, T. (1999). The edge of many circles: Making meaning of meaning making. Discourse Processes, 27(2), 103–117. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lee, C. D. (1997). Bridging home and school literacies: Models for culturally responsive teaching, a case for African American English. In S. B. Heath & D. Lapp (eds.), A Handbook for Literacy Educators: Research on Teaching the Communicative and Visual Arts (pp. 334–345). New York: Macmillan. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lin, L. (1993). Language of and in the classroom: Constructing the patterns of social life. Linguistics and Education, 5(3&4), 367–410. Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis. In M. Apple (ed.), Review of Research in Education, 21 (pp. 49–95). Washington, DC: AERA. Macbeth, D. (2003). Hugh Mehan’s Learning Lessons reconsidered: On the differences between the naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 239–280. Maybin, J. (2006). Children’s Voices: Talk, Knowledge and Identity. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. McDermott, R. & Roth, D. (1978). The social organization of behavior: Interactional approaches. Annual Review of Anthropology, 7, 321–345. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mercer, N. (1995). The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst Teachers and Learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Mishler, E. G. (1979). Meaning in Context, Is There Any Other Kind? Harvard Educational Review, 49, 1–19. Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzales, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(1), 132–141. O’Connor, M. C. & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335. Orellana, M. F. (1996). Negotiating power through language in classroom meetings, Linguistics and Education, 8, 335–365. Philips, S. O. (1982). The Invisible Culture: Communication in Classroom and Community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. New York: Longman. Poole, D. (1994). Routine testing practices and the linguistic construction of knowledge. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 125–150. Rampton, B. (2000). Continuity and change in views of change in applied linguistics. In H. Tappes-Lomax (ed.), Change and Continuity and Applied Linguistics (pp. 97–114). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Rex, L. A. (ed.) (2006). Discourse of Opportunity: How Talk in Learning Situations Creates and Constrains. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Rex, L. A., Steadman, S., & Graciano, M. K. (2006). Researching the complexity of classroom interaction. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (eds.), Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research (pp. 727–772). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum/AERA.

THOC40

583

8/8/07, 2:53 PM

584

Lesley Rex and Judith Green

Rosenshine, B. & Furst, N. (1986). The use of direct observation to study teaching. In R. Travers (ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 122–183). Chicago: Rand McNally. Sadovnik, A. (ed.) (1995). Knowledge and Pedagogy: The Sociology of Basil Bernstein. Norwood, NJ: Ablex/Greenwood. Sinclair, J. M. H. & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. New York: Oxford University Press. Street, B. V., Baker, D., & Tomlin, A., (2005). Navigating Numeracies Home/School Numeracy Practices. The Netherlands: Springer. Strike, K. (1974). On the expressive potential of behaviorist language. American Educational Research Journal, 11(2), 103–120. Tuyay, S., Jennings, L., & Dixon, C. (1995). Classroom discourse and opportunities to learn: An ethnographic study of knowledge construction in a bilingual third-grade classroom. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19(1), 75–110. Vine, E. (2003). My partner: A five-year-old Samoan boy learns how to articulate in class through interactions with his English-speaking peers. Linguistics and Education, 14(1), 99–121. Watson, D. R. (1992). Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, and education: An overview. International Review of Education, 38(3), 257–274. Weade, G., (1987). Curriculum ‘n’ instruction: The construction of meaning. Theory into Practice, 26(1), 15–25. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wells, G. (2002). The role of dialogue in activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9, 43–66. Willet, J., Solsken, J., & Wilson-Keenan, J. (1999). Linguistics and Education, 10(2), 165–218.

THOC40

584

8/8/07, 2:53 PM