CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9Reading and Literacy DevelopmentLinguistics and Education ResearchLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies

Children's discussions about texts: Integrating and evaluating practices

Open access
Pulles, Maaike, Berenst, Jan, de Glopper, Kees, Koole, Tom·2022·Linguistics and Education
DOI 10.1016/j.linged.2022.101051
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper examines how primary school students discuss deeper comprehension and evaluation of text, while involved in dialogic reading in the context of inquiry learning. It takes a conversation analytic perspective on reading for understanding and critical reading. Analysis of the conversational details of peer talk, revealed how students collaboratively construct deeper meaning of text and take a more critical stance toward the text by means of integrating and evaluating actions. We found that how students understand and interpret the text, is reflected in different types of integrating practices they use: comparing text components with previous knowledge, giving additional information, applying information from the text to the present interactional situation. Evaluating practices, on the other hand, are also based on integrating actions, but they display an explicit critical stance to the text as well

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.linged.2022.101051

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk . Cambridge: Dialogos .
  2. Antaki, C. C. (2011). Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institu- tional talk . Palgrave Macmillan .
  3. Applebee, A. N. , Langer, J. A. , Nystrand, M. , & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40 (3), 685-730 .
  4. Broe, V. (2003). Skip-connecting as a means for maintaining coherence -an aspect of the sequential organisation of talk. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 35 (1), 160-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2003.10416077 . · DOI
  5. Brown, P. , & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenom- ena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56-324). Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press .
  6. Coulter, J. (1990). Elementary properties of argument sequences. In: G. Psathas (ed.), Interaction competence (pp. 181-203).
  7. Washington D.C.: University Press of America.
  8. Eeds, M. , & Wells, D. (1989). Grand conversations: An exploration of meaning con- struction in literature study groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 23 (1), 4-29 . · DOI
  9. Freebody, P., & Freiberg, J. M. (2010). Routledge . https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780203840412.ch19 . · DOI
  10. Gardner, R (2019). Classroom interaction research: The state of the art. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52 (3), 212-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08351813.2019.1631037 . · DOI
  11. Garfinkel, H. , & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney, & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology. Perspectives and developments (pp. 337-366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts .
  12. Gosen, M. N. , & Koole, T. (2017). Conversation analysis. In D. Wyse, N. Selwyn, E. Smith, & L. E. Suter (Eds.), The BERA/SAGE handbook of educational research (pp. 791-811). London: Sage .
  13. Guthrie, J. T. (2016). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 36 (1), 1-30 .
  14. Hasset, D. D. (2010). New literacies in the elementary classroom: The instructional dynamics of visual texts. In K. Hall, U. Goswami, C. Harrison, S. Ellis, & J. Soler (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on learning to read: Culture, cognition and pedagogy (pp. 87-100). London and New York: Routledge .
  15. Heritage, J. C. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 299-345). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press .
  16. Heritage, J. C. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45 (1), 1-29. https://doi. org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 . · DOI
  17. Heritage, J. C. , & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language. Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123-162). New York: Irvington Publishers .
  18. Howe, C , & Howe, C. (2010). Peer dialogue and cognitive development. A two-way relationship?. In K. Littleton (Ed.), Educational dialogues. Understanding and pro- moting productive interaction (pp. 32-47). London and New York: Routledge .
  19. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-31). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins .
  20. Kimps, D. (2018). Tag questions in conversation: A typology of their interactional and stance meanings (Ser. Studies in corpus linguistCcs, volume 83). John Ben- jamins Publishing Company. In W. Kintsch (Ed.), Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition (p. 1998). New York: Cambridge University Press .
  21. Klingner, J. K. , Vaughn, S. , & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 99 (1), 3-22 .
  22. Littleton, K. , & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work . London and New York: Routledge .
  23. Koole, T. (2010). Displays of epistemic access: Student responses to teacher ex- planations. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43 (2), 183-209. https: //doi.org/10.1080/08351811003737846 . · DOI
  24. Koole, T. (2012). Teacher evaluations: Assessing 'knowing', 'understanding', and 'do- ing. In G. Rasmussen, C. E. Brouwer, & D. Day (Eds.), Evaluating cognitive com- petences in interaction (pp. 43-66). Amsterdam: Benjamins .
  25. Littleton, K. , & Kerawalla, L (2012). Trajectories of inquiry learning. In K. Littleton, E. Scanlon, & M. Sharples (Eds.), Orchestrating inquiry learning (pp. 31-47). Lon- don/New York: Routledge .
  26. Maine, F. (2013). How children talk together to make meaning from texts: A dialogic perspective on reading comprehension strategies. Literacy, 47 (3), 150-156. https: //doi.org/10.1111/lit.12010 . · DOI
  27. Maine, F. (2015). Dialogic readers: Children talking and thinking together about visual texts . London/New York: Routledge .
  28. Maine, F. , Rojas-Drummond, S. , Hofmann, R. , & Barrera, M. J. (2020). Symmetries and asymmetries in children's peer-group reading discussions. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 43 (1), 17-32 .
  29. Maree, N., & Westhuizen, G. v. d (2020). How classroom talk contributes to reading comprehension. Per Linguam, 36 (2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.5785/36-2-910 . · DOI
  30. Maybin, J. , & Moss, G. (1993). Talk about texts: Reading as a social event. Journal of Research in Reading, 16 (2), 138-147 .
  31. Mazeland, H. (1994). Argumentatie in gesprekken. Een conversatie-analytische aanzet. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 16 (4), 1-29 .
  32. Mazeland, H. , & Plug, L. (2010). Doing confirmation with ja/nee hoor: Sequential and prosodic characteristics of a dutch discourse particle. In D. Barth-Wein- garten, E. Reber, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in interaction (pp. 161-188). Am- sterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins .
  33. McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. (2011). Critical literacy as comprehension: Under- standing at deeper levels. In D. Lapp, & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of re- search on teaching the English language arts (Third ed., pp. 278-282) Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203839713.ch40 . · DOI
  34. McNamara, D. S. (2021). If integration is the keystone of comprehension: inferencing is the key. Discourse Processes, 58 (1), 86-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X. 2020.1788323 . · DOI
  35. McNamara, D. S. , Kintsch, E. , Songer, N. B. , & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and lev- els of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14 (1), 1- 43 .
  36. Melander, H., & Sahlström, F. (2009). In tow of the blue whale: Learning as in- teractional changes in topical orientation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41 , 1519-1537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.013 . · DOI
  37. Mercer, N. , & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach . London: Routledge .
  38. Mullis, I. V. S. , Martin, M. O. , & Sainsbury, M. (2015). PIRLS 2016 reading framework. In I. V. S. Mullis, M. O. Martin, & F. Luth (Eds.), PIRLS 2016 assessment framework (pp. 11-29). Boston College: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center .
  39. Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexan- der, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students' comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (3), 740-764. https: //doi.org/10.1037/a0015576 . · DOI · Paper page
  40. Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects read- ing comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40 (4), 392-412 .
  41. Nystrand, M. , Wu, L. L. , Gamoran, A. , Zeiser, S. , & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom dis- course. Discourse Processes, 35 (2), 135-198 .
  42. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework . Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10. 1787/19963777 . · DOI
  43. Pearson, P. D. , Palincsar, A. S. , Biancarosa, G. , & Berman, A. I. (2020). Reaping the rewards: Reading for understanding initiative . Washington D.C: National Academy of Education .
  44. Pulles, M., Berenst, J., de Glopper, K., & Koole, T. (2020). Text selection proposals in dialogic reading in primary school. Pragmatics and Society, 11 (4), 591-614. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.17029.pul . · DOI
  45. Pulles, M., Berenst, J., Koole, T., de Glopper, K., & Koole, T. (2020). How primary school children address reading problems in dialogic reading. Research on Chil- dren and Social Interaction, 4 (2), 217-242. https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.12411 . · DOI
  46. Pulles, M., Berenst, J., Koole, T., & De Glopper, K. (2021). Text formulations as practices of demonstrating understanding of text in interaction. Text & Talk . https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0222 . · DOI
  47. Richter, T., & Rapp, D. N. (2014). Comprehension and validation of text information: Introduction to the special issue. Discourse Processes, 51 (1-2), 1-6. https://doi. org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.855533 . · DOI
  48. Rijk, Y. van , Volman, M. , de Haan, D. , & Van Oers, B. (2017). Maximising mean- ing: Creating a learning environment for reading comprehension of informative texts from a vygotskian perspective. Learning Environments Research, 20 (1), 77- 98 .
  49. Rojas-Drummond, S., Maine, F., Alarcón, M., Trigo, A. L., Barrea, M. J., Mazón, N., & Hoffman, R. (2017). Dialogic literacy: Talking, reading and writing among pri- mary school children. Learning. Culture and Social Interaction, 12 , 45-62. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.09.005 . · DOI
  50. Rojas-Drummond, S. , Mazón, N. , Fernández, M. , & Wegerif, R. (2006). Explicit rea- soning, creativity and co-construction in primary school children's collaborative activities. Thinking Skills and Creativity , (1), 84-94 . · DOI
  51. Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation . I, II. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/97814 4 4328301 . · DOI
  52. Sacks, H. , Schegloff, E. , & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking in Conversation. Language, 50 , 696-735 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/412243 . · DOI · Paper page
  53. Sahlström, F. (2009). Conversation analysis as a way of studying Learning: An intro- duction to a special issue of SJER. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53 (2), 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830902757543 . · DOI
  54. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis : 1. New York: Cambridge University Press Volume .
  55. Seuren, L. M. (2019). Oh (/o/) als ontvanger van informatie in sociale interactie [Oh (/o/) as information receipt in Dutch talk-in-interaction]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbe- heersing, 41 (2), 363-390. https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2019.2.002.SEUR . · DOI
  56. Sidnell, J. , & Stivers, T. (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis . Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, a John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication .
  57. Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Ed- wards, M. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high- level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47 (6), 372- 391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2009.01.001 . · DOI · Paper page
  58. Sterponi, L. (2007). Clandestine interactional reading: Intertextuality and double- voicing under the desk. Linguistics and Education, 18 (1), 1-23. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.linged.20 07.04.0 · DOI
  59. Tanner, M. , Olin-Scheller, C. , & Tengberg, M. (2017). Material texts as objects in inter- action -constraints and possibilities in relation to dialogic reading instruction. Nordic Journal of Literacy Research, 3 (0) . · DOI
  60. Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
  61. Van den Branden, K. (20 0 0). Does negotiation of meaning promote reading com- prehension? A study of multilingual primary school classes. Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (3), 426-443. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.35.3.6 . Van der Westhuizen, G. J. (2012). Reading comprehension interaction: A conversa- tion analysis perspective. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Stud- ies, 30 (3), 361-375 . · DOI
  62. Vine, E. W. (2008). CA and SCT: Strange bedfellows or useful partners for under- standing classroom interactions? Discourse Studies, 10 (5), 673-693 .
  63. Weijde, D. van der (2017). Unpublished bachelor's thesis .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pulles, M., Berenst, J., de Glopper, K., & Koole, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences (NL)
Corresponding author
Pulles, Maaike
ORCID
Venue
Linguistics and Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-06
Volume
69
Pages
101051
ISSN
0898-5898 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.linged.2022.101051
OpenAlex
W4225738748
Cited by
9
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5
FWCI
2.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Linguistics and Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Linguistics and Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Keywords
dialogic reading, critical reading, reading for understanding, peer talk, elementary school students, text comprehension, inquiry-based learning, conversation analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review