Tensioning interpretive authority during dialogic discussions of literature

Abstract

This analysis of classroom discourse offers a dialogic perspective on interpretive authority-the argumentative assertion of meaning-by mobilizing the Bakhtinian concepts of centripetal and centrifugal forces to analyze how one teacher and his students co-constructed literary meanings during two 45-minute whole-class discussions of the text Grendel in two secondary English classrooms in the United States. Discussion transcripts were segmented into interpretive episodes and coded for the form and function of students' (a) interpretations (e.g., how students made meanings in interaction by dialoguing with other students, texts, and ideas) and (b) source of authority (e.g., how students asserted text-based meanings that either validated or disrupted conventional or locally ratified interpretations). Micro-level discourse analyses revealed how participants co-constructed interpretive authority by tensioning talk between centripetal tendencies to unify, centralize, and standardize text meanings and centrifugal tendencies that reimagined, expanded, and disrupted standard interpretations of the text. Critical to the development of students' dialogic construction of interpretive authority was the teacher's stance as listener and discussion participant, teacher and student tensioning of standard and non-standard literary meanings, and a classroom environment in which students' colloquial language could be used to support literary sensemaking. Rethinking interpretive authority as a dynamic concept tensioned between centripetal and centrifugal forces may shed light on how dialogic practices are enacted given the complexities that inform how students and teachers participate during literary discussions.

Learning to Argue Through Dialogue: a Review of Instructional Approaches

“…Studies that use instructional framing to optimize classroom discussions tend to focus on dialogue quality per se as an indicator of how thinking and reasoning take place. This characterization of dialogue quality includes exploratory talk (as opposed to presentational or recitation talk) (Brown 2016; Molinari and Mameli 2013), dialogic co-construction of knowledge (Mason 1998), interpretive authority (Chisholm and Loretto 2016), or even presence of arguments (Lee and Majors 2003). Although the focus is not directly on the production of more sophisticated argumentative products, this often is a desired outcome.…”

“…Examples of studies focusing on sensemaking as a primary task for students to engage with are: Lee, Kang, and 1 in science (students were asked to provide an explanation of a scientific phenomenon using modelling strategies) or Chisholm and Loretto (2016) in a language classroom ('how students made meanings in interaction by dialoguing with other students, texts, and ideas', p. 1).…”

“…Studies belonging to the first pattern (low-structured sensemaking) tend to describe argumentative dialogue as an organic, whole-class, student-driven (Aukerman et al 2016) or student-dominant (McNeill and Pimentel 2010) dialogue, aiming at the co-construction of ideas and shared interpretive authority among teacher and students alike (Chisholm and Loretto 2016). Within this study pattern, argumentative dialogue is a learning conversation (Simon et al 2008), in which student agency and authority in discourse (Forman et al 2017) is promoted.…”

The call of ambiguity: lingering over uncertainty as classroom practice

“…More recent scholarship echoes these findings. For example, Chisholm and Loretto’s (2016) study of an English teacher’s engagement with dialogic instruction identifies a number of moments when the teacher treated the discussion as a recitation, and Chick et al ’s (2009) study of a college-level introduction to literary study course shows that the students had little experience lingering with ambiguity in their previous English classes. As Levine and Trepper (2019) note, “many US high school students continue to experience literature instruction that is overly formalized, rigid, and teacher-centered” (p. 3).…”

"It teaches them to have a conversation in the real world" : an analysis of how identity performances shape classroom discussions.

“…Teachers must take into consideration the ways in which they can encourage students to take on interpretive authority by imagining and reimagining the many perspectives that a text can encourage. When students are given the opportunity to consider both the text and their own interpretations of the world, they may engage in dialogic discussion as they posit multiple perspectives and in turn challenge their own understandings, resulting in tensioned talk that drives the development of new ideas (Chisholm & Loretto, 2016 with students talking past one another to prove their points to their peers. However, during collaborative disagreement the teacher purposely took up different talk moves.…”