Who Thinks They Can Put That in Their Own Words? Using the Third Turn to Build a Classroom Culture of Listening

• In Event: Roundtable Session 27
  In Roundtable Session: Raising the Bar With the Third Turn: Discourse Tools That Encourage the Expansion of Student Reasoning

Abstract

Objectives
Many of the “productive talk moves” that have been identified in the literature (Michaels & O’Connor, 2011; Chapin et al., 2002) create a space for students to say more — to further explicate their own reasoning. This paper focuses on the “Who can repeat/rephrase?” move, which uses the “third turn” to a different end. It opens up a space for another student to repeat or rephrase the originating student’s contribution. This paper explores the linguistic and socio-cognitive affordances of the “Who can repeat?” move, as part of a “life history” study of this move — from introduction to internalization — in a linguistically diverse classroom in Worcester, MA.
Theoretical framework
This study builds on the work of Erving Goffman (1981) and M.H. Goodwin (1990), emphasizing the ways that a particular utterance can create a participant framework, positioning participants in particular ways with respect to one another, and with respect to particular content. Below is a skeletal example of this move (in Turn 3):

Turn 1: Teacher asks a question.
Turn 2: Student A provides an answer.
Turn 3: Teacher: “Who thinks they understood that idea and can put it into their own words?”
Turn 4: Student B: “I think what he said was…XXXX…(looking at Student A)… Did I get that right?
Turn 5: Student A: “Yeah, sort of…what I meant was…”
This move has been written about as a powerful “culture changing tool,” putting all students on notice that they have to be able to hear and understand what was said well enough to repeat it or put it into their own words. It creates a public discursive “practice ground,” getting students to explicate complex ideas, even if they did not originate them (a language acquisition-facilitative tool in a linguistically diverse classroom) (Michaels & O’Connor, 2011; Michaels et al., 2002). And yet, the move is not well understood and is rarely used in US classrooms.
Methods and Data Sources
This study grows out of a teacher-researcher seminar on “powerful discussions” during the 2011-12 school year. Empirical data come from observations and transcripts from audio and video recordings of a recurring discussion activity (using a curriculum called “Discussions4Learning), over the course of the year in Cindy Bourgelas’ first grade. Through discourse analysis, we document the “life history” of this move, as it got introduced, coached, and then gradually used by the children themselves.
Conclusions
A close look at structural and formal affordances of this move helps to clarify the challenges teachers face in picking up this particular talk tool. The case study demonstrates how and why this move helps even very young students learn to listen to one another, as participants in collaborative knowledge building.
Significance
This paper should provide useable knowledge for teachers interested in building a culture of public reasoning in their classrooms.

Authors

• Sarah Michaels, Clark University

• Julie Dwyer, Boston University

• Cindy Bourgelas, Woodland Academy