Turn-taking in classroom interactions:

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 59

European Journal of Psychology of Education 2008, Vol. XXIII, nº 1, 59-76 © 2008, I.S.P.A.

Turn-taking in classroom interactions: Overlapping, interruptions and pauses in primary school Barbara Maroni University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Italy Augusto Gnisci Second University of Naples, Italy Clotilde Pontecorvo University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Italy

This paper examines the rhythm and the management of classroom interaction as an important constituent of a teaching-learning process.

Twenty three lessons in 12 classes (four 2nd grades, four 3rd grades and four 4th grades) of state primary schools spread all over Italy were observed and videotaped for a total of 15 hours. The descriptive analysis of the collected data revealed a transformation of children’s and class interactivity and a change in the use of turn-taking strategies (overlaps, interruptions and pauses) from 2nd to 4th grade.

Additionally, it showed that: (1) speaker after overlap changes according to the type of overlap; (2) teachers differ from children in their turn-interrupting strategies (teacher interrupts with supportive and silent turns, whereas children with failed or simple interruptions); (3) log-linear analysis revealed that the next speaker was correlated both with the first speaker and pause duration, but these correlations were independent between them. For a more accurate interpretation of the results various aspects characterizing educational and school interaction were taken into account.

The present study focuses on a particular aspect of social interaction in a specific context: the turn-taking in classrooms of primary school. Previous studies showed that turn-taking in conversation is a central issue in classroom interaction and an important constituent of teaching-learning process; thus the aim of this work is to observe and to analyse the different turn transitions.

The study is part of a National research project , supported by the Italian Minister of Education, for the years 2002-2003. The financial support was given to Clotilde Pontecorvo. University of Rome “La Sapienza”.

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

60

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 60

B. MARONI, A. GNISCI, & C. PONTECORVO

Theoretical framework Despite the many studies on classroom interactions, few have provided a clear account of turn-taking strategies, and yet turn-taking is a basic form of organization for conversation (Oreström, 1983; Roger, Bull, & Smith, 1988; Bailey, Plunkett & Scarpa, 1999; Schegloff, 2000; Bortfeld, Leon, Bloom, Schober, & Brennan, 2001). Turn-taking maintains a mutual attention among parties involved in a conversation, defines their relationship (Wiemann & Knapp, 1999) and the pertinence boundaries related to interaction (Kendon, 1992). According to Schegloff (1987, p. 208), turn-allocation techniques prepare to some extent what seems to be “a primordial place of sociality: direct interaction between individuals”.

Among turn-allocation models used within the existing literature (Jaffe & Feldstein, 1970, scholastic model; Duncan, 1972, signal model), the sequential-production model (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) is generally considered the most accurate and complete (Goodwin, 1981; Levinson, 1983). According to this model, turn-taking occurs at the point defined as the transition relevance place which is at the completion of a turn constructional unit. Turn constructional units are characterized by syntactical, prosodic and pragmatic aspects, that are interdependent when speaker-change occurs. It is for this reason that Ford and Thompson (1996) introduce the concept of Complex Transition Relevance Place, CTRP. According to conversational analysts, speakers tend to follow the principle of “no gaps/no overlaps” (Sacks et al., 1974). Transitions from one turn to the next occur both in a “soft” way, through pauses and synchronization between speakers, and also in a “non-soft” way (Oreström, 1983), through overlaps and mutual interruptions, when parties talk simultaneously changing the interactive rhythm.

Despite the fact that numerous authors from various fields attempted to define and interpret the phenomenon of pauses in interaction offering therefore a variety of classifications (Bruneau, 1973; Duez, 1982; Scott, 1993; Kurzon, 1995; Gurevitch, 1998; Menghini & Maroni, 1999; Maroni, Gnisci, & Pontecorvo, 2003), two important systematic studies examined interactive pauses: using pausology and conversational analysis approaches to social interaction. The first one is a part of psycholinguistics that deals with temporal organization in language use and developed mainly in England with the research of F. Goldman-Eisler (1958, 1961, 1967, 1972). Experimental studies in pausology have shown that the length and the frequency of pauses are correlated with the processes of the speaker’s lexical and semantic choices. This field however has been often criticized, in particular for the use of verbal sequences untypical of spontaneous language (Rochester, 1973; Beattie & Butterworth, 1979) and for the lack of distinction between common and frequent words in an interaction and those foreseeable in a specific context (Brown, 1980). Conversational analysts (Sacks et al., 1974) have focused on silence and pauses when assuming an interactive connotation. The authors emphasize three pause types in an organized system of ordinary interaction: the “gap”, the “lapse” and the “pause”1. These pause types depend on their placement in an interaction and on continuous or discontinuous conversation, and can be transformed when interpreted differently. When there is an increase in the pause, it transforms from a “gap” into a “lapse”.

In this case, Denny (1985) demonstrates that the probability that a change of speaker increases as well. Wilson and Zimmerman (1986), considering the dyadic interaction, clarify this aspect and conclude that social interaction is therefore a collaborative activity, not only for turntaking and producing but also for its use of silences.

“Soft” turn transitions occur both through pauses and synchronization, “a global and fundamental property of communication” (Anolli, 2002, p. 203), that develops through the interaction with adults. This synchronization is fundamental for a collaborative and cooperative interaction, where the listener waits until the other speaker’s turn completion and demonstrates that the participants share the CTRP. In these cases, there is a “latching” or “lacing” between turns. According to Communication Accommodation Theory (Giles & Smith, 1979), the strategies of synchronization and accommodation consist of a broad range of linguistic and not linguistic signals, that allow the parties to adapt to each other’s communicational acts and paces in a converging and diverging way, making communicational exchanges either harmonic or disharmonic.

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 61

TURN-TAKING IN CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS

61

If parties don’t share the transitional reference point, turn taking would not be harmonious and the parties will find themselves talking at the same time. The listener, therefore, will interrupt the speaker’s turn and overlapping talk will occur. Bazzanella (1994) identifies three structural variables that should be considered in order to examine interruptions: simultaneous discourse (overlapping), the first-speaker’s turn completion and the turn-obtainment by the person who interrupts the conversation. Other aspects that should be regarded in order to categorize “non-soft” transitions are the function that interruptions assume and the reason for which they appear, as well as the type of the linguistic act and the content of the very interruption, interpersonal relationships that are established and modified in the course of interaction, and the social and psychological position of superiority of each party (Bazzanella, 1994).

Some turn-taking aspects gain particular importance within the school context characterized by asymmetrical interactive roles and the typical sequence teacher’s initiation, student’s response, teacher’s feedback (IRF). Classroom interaction is an interaction where “the participants do not accomplish the equality of communicative rights and obligations, but differentiate for unequal access to the power of managing the interaction” (Orletti, 2000; p. 12). The classroom therefore represents an asymmetrical interaction where the teacher not only attributes speaking turns but also controls thematic organization, opposite to the way equal conversation is led (Candela, 1999; Gómez Alemany & Mauri Majós, 2000). The typical sequence in the three phases of class interaction (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975), allowed to identify a different teachers’ and students’ role. In most didactic sequence, the teacher starts with a question, that can be addressed to a particular child or to anyone who is willing to respond; a student responds and the teacher takes turn again, making an evaluation of the student’s participation and/or allocating the next turn (Fasulo & Pontecorvo, 1999). This relatively regular sequence in all classroom interactions (Wells, 1993) affects the turn-taking strategies, pause and silence values and conversational pace of this particular context (McHoul, 1978). Rowe’s (1974) longitudinal study on the silences and pauses in classroom interaction, where only the pauses between the student’s answer and the following teacher’s turn and between the student’s lack of response and the teacher’s following valuation or questio n were considered, showed that usually when the student does not respond, the teacher’s question is repeated within one second; when the student responds, the teacher reacts within 0.9 seconds. Rowe (1974) called this variable a “wait-time” (reaction-time latency) and observed the changes that occur by manipulating the two levels of this variable. The teachers were asked to increase the latency time to 3-5 seconds. The results showed important changes in students’ responses: the number of words, the number of appropriate, hurried up and speculative responses, the variety of verbal moves and the frequency of the questions increased, while the number of errors decreased. Students revealed a higher variability in their answers but the number and the type of teacher’s questions though changed too. The author concluded that, despite the fact that long latency periods increased student’s involvement, the shorter pauses were more natural and essential for a better control over the interaction. These results were confirmed by other researchers (Tobin, 1983; Skinner, Fletcher, & Henington, 1996), and seem to prove Taylor’s hypothesis (1969) according to which pauses carry a cognitive function and express cognitive processes of discourse planning (Hänni, 1980).

Based on a neo-vygotskian perspective of a joint participation and influence in a teacher/student relationship and considering the sequential structure of interaction, Erickson (1982, 1996) concluded that the mutual influence between the parties is simultaneous and consequential to their conversation. The parties’ temporal localization of various actions, though not always foreseeable and calculable, is an important element of a conversation as a collective, mutual and complementary activity. Applying these conclusions to the class interaction, the author introduces the metaphor of ‘turn sharks’ in order to indicate to frequent overlapping and interrupting that occur in this context. If turns are not taken with the help of these ‘attacks’, they can become ‘rescuers-conversational dolphins’ and change the synchronization and conversational pace (Erickson, 1996).

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

62

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 62

B. MARONI, A. GNISCI, & C. PONTECORVO

Research aim and hypothesis The analysis of the existing literature revealed various problematic aspects in relation to the study on classroom interaction and especially the ways through which teachers and students manage turn-taking. The rules that guide turn exchanges have been the subject of interest of many scientists and those who are interested in what conversations reveal about interpersonal relationships. Participant structure, various typologies of turn transitions (soft and non-soft) and asymmetry of conversational rules are only some of the elements that affects class interaction. Verbal interaction in this context is fundamental because it is used as a primary medium for the teaching-learning process (Pontecorvo, 1999; Clifton, 2004).

Studying and analyzing the management of turn-taking is therefore a further step into the understanding of the process of socialization.

Using the above as a theoretical framework, this paper has the following aims: 1) to present the progress of class interaction through descriptive analysis, pointing out the change of students’ interaction participation from 2nd to 4th grade of the primary school; 2) to identify the differences between the turn-taking strategies used by teachers and students, hypothesising: (a) a different use of overlapping talk; (b) a greater use of simple, silent and supportive interruptions by teachers versus children’s failed interruptions; (c) teacher’s interference when children’s turn-taking time (latency time) increases.

Method Participants The participants were 12 classes (four 2nd grades, four 3rd grades and four 4th grades) of Public primary schools spread all over Italy (Rome, Forlì-Cesena, Chieti, and Taranto).

Children were from middle class and their parents had a secondary education. Classes and teachers were selected on a voluntary basis, they can be, thus, considered to form an incidental sample whose variations tend to compensate.

Every classroom was videotaped 3 times during 2 weeks. The first video recording lesson was aimed at familiarization with the camera. It lets us observe that the management of interaction among 12 teachers was similar with the typical sequences IRF (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). In order to illustrate the typical sequence, we present two excerpts taken from two different teachers and two different phases video-recordings (Ex. 1 and Ex. 2).

In both excerpts, there is the cyclical sequence IRF (Initiation-Response-Follow up) where the teacher controls the conversation. In fact the teacher asks a question (Initiation), assesses the child’s reply (Response), then she repeats some words of this response (Follow up).

One 2nd grade class refused for practical reason to do the last video recording. The data corpus therefore is constituted of 23 video-recordings for a total of 15 hours (the shortest one (of 00:15.39) was the 3rd grade class from Rome, 23/01/2002; the longest one (of 01:19.07) is one of the 4th grade class from Taranto, 20/11/2001).

All 12 teachers were women and they had a long experience as teachers in primary school with a similar professional training (the average number of years as a teacher was 18.5). The number of children attending the classes varied for every class and day of recording ranging (from the minimum of 9 children in a 3rd grade class from Rome to a maximum of 23 children in a 3rd grade class from Chieti). All of the recordings were done in 2001/2002 school year.

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 63

TURN-TAKING IN CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS

63

Excerpt 1

Teacher Laura; 2nd grade class from Forlì-Cesena; 2nd video.

Teacher’s asking children to continue the story.

33. Teacher: when I said, <and at the end there were 33. Insegnante: quando ho detto. <e alla fine ce ne furono talmente tante che non ebbero più lo spazio per so many that they had no space to move AND THEY STOod still>. (.) so the people? muoversi E RIMAsero tutte ferme>. (.) così la gente?

34. Agnese: (4.0) they wanted::(0.5) that there were cars – less cars.

35. Teacher: people >she says< let’s hope there will be less cars. Elisa?

36. Elisa: they crossed over the cars.

34. Agnese: (4.0) voleva: (0.5) che le macchine fos – ce ne fossero di meno.

35. Insegnante: la gente >dice< speriamo che ci siano meno macchine. Elisa?

36. Elisa: passavano sopra le macchine.

37. Teacher: they crossed over the cars. >she says< in order to move, people are forced (.) to cross over the [cars].

37.Insegnante: passavano sopra le macchine. >dice< la gente per muoversi è costretta, (.) a passare sopra le [macchine].

39. Teacher: Caterina?

39. Insegnante: Caterina?

38. Alessandro: [it’s the st] – it’s a new street.

40. Caterina: (3.5) they tried to build a way through.

41. Teacher: they tried to find a space to >(.)<. Luca?

42. Luca: they climb over the cars and they went down.

43. Teacher: they climbed over the cars, they went up, they went down. Laura?

38. Alessandro: [è la st] – è una nuova strada.

40. Caterina: (3.5) cercavano di fare un passaggio.

41. Insegnante: cercavano di trovare uno spazio per >(.)<. Luca?

42. Luca: si arrampicano sulle macchine e scendevano.

43. Insegnante: si arrampicavano sulle macchine, salivano, scendevano. Laura?

Excerpt 2

Teacher Silvia; 3rd grade class from Chieti; 3rd video.

Discussion is about comparison between possible prosecutions and the real development.

611. Teacher: eh. so why did you think to continue the 611. Insegn.: eh. perché allora voi: avete pensato di sto:ry: this way. (2.0) continuare la sto:ria: in questo modo. (2.0) 612. Teacher: Flavia (with a nod).

612. Insegn.: Flavia (con un cenno della testa).

613. Flavia: because: mhm (.) according to me the story: continued (0.5) I mean according to me, the story: (.) continued that way:

613. Flavia: perché: mhm (.) secondo: me la storia: andava (0.5) cioè secondo me, la storia: (.) andava in quel modo:

615. Flavia: [eh: mhm:] (1.0) because: (.) from what you read: about the real story, in my opinion the continuation: was in that way.

615. Flavia: [eh: mhm:] (1.0) perché: (.) da quello che hai letto: che era la storia vera, secondo me il continuo: era in quel modo.

617. Silvia: because we thought that the story h(conti)nued like that, instead it was not.

617. Silvia: perché credevamo che la storia (anda)sse così, invece non era così.

614. Teacher: mh. ( ) [why]?

616. Teacher: it was in that way. According to Silvia?

614. Insegn.: mh. ( ) [perché]?

616. Insegnante: era in quel modo. per Silvia?

618. Teacher: it was not. (0.5)

618. Insegnante: non era così. (0.5)

620. Irene: because: eh, according to me the most logical explanation – because (.) it was the fantasy: we imagined that the story was like that.

620. Irene: perché: eh, per me la spiegazione più logica – perché (.) era la fantasia: abbiamo immaginato che fosse così la storia.

622. Veronica: teach’, we said so because: (.) you have not read: it yet: (.) therefore we said what we thought.

622. Veronica: mae’, abbiamo detto così perché: (.) tu non ancora: ce lo leggevi: (.) allora abbiamo detto come pensavamo noi.

619. Teacher: according to you Irene?

621. Teacher: that it was like that. Veronica?

623. Teacher: what you thought. all right. a last question.

619. Insegnante: per Irene?

621. Insegnante: che fosse così. Veronica?

623. Insegnante: come pensavate voi. va bene. un’ultima domanda.

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

64

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 64

B. MARONI, A. GNISCI, & C. PONTECORVO

Observational procedure and transcription Researchers directly contacted the schools, obtained an authorization from school director teachers and pupils’ parents, and requested teachers availability and authorization for observation. All teachers, parents and even children signed an informed consent form.

In order to have homogeneous data in all classes, the same activity, stimulating children’s participation and discussion, was chosen in all classes: reading Rodari’s story called “Piper and cars” (Rodari, 1971). All teachers were asked to interrupt the reading in the same places and to ask children to suggest possible prosecutions, soliciting a general discussion2.

Three dates for video recordings were scheduled. The first was aimed at familiarization with the camera and acquaintance with researchers, the teachers were asked to choose an activity and a recording moment. The second recording took place during the reading of the story with interruptions in the indicated places. The story was given to the teachers only one day before the recording and the teachers were asked not to inform the children about the content of the story. The third recording concern the comparison between possible prosecutions, suggested by the children, and the real development. Before the last recording, the teachers were given the transcripts of children’s possible endings to facilitate the final discussion. In all three phases of observation, whole class in dialogue with teacher and each child takes turn autonomously.

Three phases of observation were video-taped with 2 digital video-cameras: one was fixed in front of a teacher and another one was used by the researcher video taping the children, especially those talking. Though conscious of the possible risk of intrusiveness of the videocamera, the researchers agreed that the presence of the equipment did not change the setting.

The recordings were transcribed according to the Conversational Analysis norms (Jefferson, 1985). Disposition of benches in the classrooms, point of view of observation and poor audio quality have not allowed the observation of the parallel interactions between children.

Therefore, only the main interactions guided by the teacher were recorded and analysed.

Coding and reliability systems The transcriptions were then systematically analysed and coded according to the two systems of categories: one for a speaker and another for the turn transition.

The system of categories for a speaker refers to participants in classroom interaction, that can take place between a teacher and a student or between students. Moreover, any child can take a turn when a teacher addresses to the whole class. Therefore, the participants in classroom interaction are: teacher, single student and the whole class (when they answer in choral modalities).

In order to verify our hypothesis we chose to refer to the category of a “single child” regardless of gender and without identifying every single child’s name and surname. Another category “others” refers to those participants who are occasionally involved in interactions (i.e., supporting teacher, etc.). The index of agreement Cohen’s Kappa, was calculated with ComKappa software, and is .97.

The system of categories of turn transitions was based on the analysed literature and especially on Bazzanella (1994) system and Cacioppo and Maroni (2004) scheme. The system of coding for turn transitions was organized into two macro-categories: five soft transitions (latching or synchrony, and pause) and seven non-soft transitions (interruptions and overlaps).

Pauses are coded with their duration. Codes and operative definitions of every category are reported in the Table 1. The index of agreement Cohen’s Kappa of the system of categories of turn transitions is .85.

Due to some technical problems or poor audio quality sometimes the transitions were indicated as a technical error.

The length of pauses was also codified where the minimal measurement was the pause shorter than 0.5 seconds and the frequency with which the pauses appeared in all video recorded material (Table 2).

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 65

TURN-TAKING IN CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS

65

Table 1 Categories related to turn transition Transition Latching Pause between turns Pause with selection Pause with selection with nonverbal response Pause with selection without response Overlap Collective Overlap Simultaneous start Simple interruption Silent interruption Supportive interruption Failed interruption Technical error

Operative definition Perfect synchronization between turns.

Pause without the selection of the speaker, shared by participants + duration.

Pause of the selected speaker who is first chosen and then takes the turn + duration.

The chosen speaker answers in a nonverbal way, the pause therefore is filled with gestures and/or body movements (such as nodding or hands signs) + duration.

The chosen speaker does not answer and the turn is taken either by the previous speaker or by someone else + duration.

Simultaneous discourse; B starts the turn during the A’s turn and both end their turns.

Incomprehensible interaction, children are talking at the same time, sometimes the teacher is included.

Simultaneous discourse; two speakers start talking at the same time and either end or don’t conclude their turn. The third letter indicates the speaker who either continues or finishes the turn.

Simultaneous discourse; B starts talking during the turn of A, A does not conclude the turn and B obtains turn exchange.

Absence of simultaneous discourse; A experiences a difficulty or pauses and B takes the turn.

Both in simultaneous discourse and its absence, but the absence of B’s intention to take the turn (therefore presence of lexical suggestions or back channel).

Simultaneous discourse and its absence, failed intention to take turn.

Problem related to the situation of observation (shooting problems, audio quality, etc.).

Table 2 Frequencies, percentage and pause duration codes Pause duration (.)

(0.5) (1.0) (1.5) (2.0) (2.5) (3.0) (3.5) ≥(4.0) Total

Frequency 1777 2409 1599 0680 0465 0138 0175 0053 0202 7498

% 023.70 032.13 021.33 009.07 006.20 001.84 002.33 000.71 002.69 1000.0

Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Research variables and data analysis This research was based on 2 variables: speaker (4 levels) and turn transition (13 levels).

The descriptive analysis was carried out on both variables for each of the 12 classrooms observed in order to obtain a general picture of turn transitional strategies on various school levels. The percentages were calculated on the total of every level of a variable: for instance, in order to calculate the percentage of teacher’s turns, the percentage was calculated for every class, considering the total of all teachers’ turns. The average percentage of classes of the same grade was also calculated. The “technical error” was not considered: despite its usefulness for the system of categories, it did not present particular interest for the analysis of the results.

In order to achieve our second aim we turned to inferential analysis and especially sequential log-linear analysis (Gnisci & Bakeman, 2000; Bakeman & Gnisci, 2005). With this analysis “... the investigators defines a set of hierarchical models... the simplest model – the null or equiprobable model – contains no terms at all and generates the same expected value for each cell in the contingency table. The most complex model – the saturated model –

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

66

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 66

B. MARONI, A. GNISCI, & C. PONTECORVO

contains sufficient terms to generate expected values for each cell that are identical to the values actually observed. The idea is to find the least complex model that nonetheless generates expected values not too discrepant from the observed ones, as determined by a goodness-of-fit-test” (Bakeman & Gottman, 1986, pp. 194-195). Moreover discursive data are guided by sequential principles (Sacks, 1972), because the meaning is offered by the participants in the following uptake, and sequential log-linear analysis doesn’t lose the sequential organization of thought and text.

Only 2 levels of the variable “speaker” were considered for this analysis: teacher and pupil, both for the low frequency of other categories and for the greater interest of the 2 considered categories. The variable concerning the length of pauses (variable Time) was considered on 2 levels uniting the categories 1-3 (short pause) e 4-9 (long pause). Once again the “technical error” was not included in the analysis. The respective research aims were: – hypothesis a) Overlap x Next Speaker (SxR, 2x2); – hypothesis b) Interruptions x Next Speaker (IxR, 4x2); – hypothesis c) Time x Previous Speaker x Next Speaker (TxPxR, 2x2x2).

The data analysis was conducted with the help of three software: SGUI (Bakeman & Quera, 1995), ILOG (Bakeman & Robinson, 1994) and SPSS. SGUI allowed the construction of contingency tables used for descriptive analysis, while ILOG and SPSS permitted the data analysis for specific research questions. For these purposes, an explanatory model was identified (the classification of the main eventual effects and interactions) to see if there was a relation between the variables. Then the analysis of the relative contingency table through standardized residuals was conducted in order to understand the associative patterns between the levels of variables. The standardized residuals served to identify the direction of the effect in case of significant χ2 (considering the residuals s≥1.96). Several times an index based on entropy that indicated the percentage of explained variance was used (Pedone & Gnisci, 2004) in order to control the hyper significant effects caused by the excessive number of tables.

Results Participation in class interaction Table 3 shows the participation of speakers in class interaction through the turns in every class.

Table 3 Percentage and corrected residuals of roles per class (N=15523) Grade 2nd 3rd 4th Total

% Conditional Corrected residuals % Conditional Corrected residuals % Conditional Corrected residuals % Conditional

Teacher -48,3% -06,4% -42,4% -2,5% -42,6% -3,5% -44,1%

Role Child -50,5% 0-5,8% -56,5% -03,3% -55,3% -02,4% -54,3%

Class -1,2% -2,3% -1,1% -3,0% -2,1% -4,8% -1,6%

Total 100,0%

% Tot. row 27,7%

100,0%

26,3%

100,0%

46,0%

100,0%

100,0%

All the participants have more turns in 4th grade classes (46.0%) compared to the 2nd (27.7%) and 3rd (26.3%) grade classes (in total). This result relates with the durations of

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 67

TURN-TAKING IN CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS

67

video-recording: in the 4th grade classes recording time are longer than in 3rd and 2nd classes.

As to the roles, children not only generally have more turns than teachers (54.3% vs. 44.1%), but also in each grade (2nd grade 50.5% vs. 48.3%; 3rd grade 56.5% vs. 42.4%; 4th grade 55.3% vs. 42.6%); there are only few turns that can be attributed to the whole class (1.6% from the total of turns).

There are differences in the role of who takes more turns among classes (Ď&#x2021;2=61.979, df=4, p<.000), even if that could be due to the great amount of numbers in the table, as confirmed by the poor percentage of variability of role explained by grade (only 0.3%). There is a constant increasing of turns in the direction from 2nd to 3rd grades as showed by corrected residuals. This change indicates that in a passage from 2nd to 3rd and from 3rd to 4th grade there is an increase in childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and class participation in general. The analysis of standardized positive residuals showed that: (a) at the 2nd grade, the teachers had more turns than compared to children and class that had less; (b) at the 3rd grade, children had more turns while the teacher and class had less; (c) at the 4th grade, single children and whole class had more turns than in the model, while the teacher had less.

Objective 1 Verbal interaction characterizes the context not only for the number of turns that participants produce but also for the turn taking strategies. The first aim of this research is to present the course of classroom interaction through the study on turn-transitional ways for each class. Firstly we would consider the change from 2nd to 4th grade of the macro categories of transitions and attempts of turn-transitions (Table 4).

Table 4 Percentage and corrected residuals of the macro categories of turn-transitions per class (N=15348) Grade 2nd 3rd 4th Total

% conditional Corrected residuals % conditional Corrected residuals % conditional Corrected residuals % marginal

Latching -53,9% -03,0% -52,1% -00,2% -50,7% 0-2,8% -51,9%

Overlap -09,7% 0-7,1% -14,4% -03,7% -13,6% -03,1% -12,7%

Transition Simult. Start -01,9% 0-1,6% -04,2% -10,6% 0-1,1% 0-8,0% -02,2%

Interrupt.

-17,5% -02,2% -14,7% 0-3,5% -16,8% -01,1% -16,5%

Pause -17,1% -00,7% -14,6% 0-4,2% -17,7% -03,1% -16,7%

Total % of row 100,0% 028,0% 100,0%

026,5%

100,0%

045,5%

100,0%

100,0%

Latching is the most used turn transition (51.9%), followed by pauses and interruptions that have similar frequencies (16.7% and 16.5% respectively), then followed by overlap (12.7%), that sometimes appears as a failed attempt of synchronization, and then the rare presence of simultaneous start (2.2%).

Passing from 2nd to 3rd and from 3rd to 4th grade, there are changes in the ways and in the use of the transitions (Ď&#x2021;2=193.691, df=8, p<.000), even if the analysis of variability shows only modest variations (0.5%).

Observing the corrected residuals, we can conclude that: (a) latching, even though most used in all classes, tends to decrease significantly from 2nd to 4th grades; (b) overlap tends to grow from 2nd to 3rd grade and then stabilizes between 3rd and 4th grades; (c) simultaneous start is greatest in the 3rd grade; (d) interruptions decrease from 2nd to 3rd grade and increase between 3rd and 4th grades; (e) pauses show the same course as interruptions.

The following is the analysis of various typologies of interruptions (Table 5).

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

68

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 68

B. MARONI, A. GNISCI, & C. PONTECORVO

Table 5 Percentage and corrected residuals of interruptions per class (N=2526) Grade 2nd 3rd 4th Total

% conditional Corrected residuals % conditional Corrected residuals % conditional Corrected residuals % marginal

Simple -14,7% 0-3,0% -21,9% -02,6% -18,8% -00,6% -18,3%

Interruptions Silent Supportive -45,9% -16,6% 0-4,8% 0-4,3% -32,7% -26,5% 0-3,5% -03,0% -37,3% -23,3% 0-1,4% -01,4% -38,8% -22,1%

Failed -22,7% -01,6% -18,9% 0-1,3% -20,5% 0-0,3% -20,8%

Total 100,0%

% of row 029,8%

100,0%

023,7%

100,0%

046,5%

100,0%

100,0%

Generally speakers interrupt each other mainly without overlapping through silent interruptio ns (38.8%), while supportive, failed and simple interruptions have similar frequencies (22.1%, 20.8% e 18.3% respectively).

The change of the interruptions from 2nd to 3rd grade and from 3rd to 4th grade revealed changes in the use of various types of interruption (χ2=44.766, df=6, p<.000), even if it was modest in terms of explained variance (0.7%).

Positive corrected residuals show that simple and supportive interruptions follow the same course even. The opposite happens with silent and failed interruptions, and especially silent that are produced more than in the model in 2nd grade and less in 3rd and 4th grades, while failed interruptions have only one tendency in 2nd grade.

The following is the analysis of various typologies of pauses (Table 6).

Table 6

Percentage and corrected residuals of pause typologies per grade (N=2494) Pause Grade Between With selection With NV answer Without answer -46,5% -32,7% 0-1,4% -19,5% 2nd % conditional Corrected residuals 0-0,2% 0-3,3% 0-6,3% 0-0,4% 3rd % conditional -47,8% -22,9% -12,5% -16,8% 0-3,1% 0-6,8% 0-1,5% Corrected residuals 0-0,6% 4th % conditional -46,5% -27,6% 0-6,4% -19,6% 0-0,3% 0-0,2% 0-0.9% Corrected residuals 0-0,3% Total % marginal -46,8% -27,8% 0-6,5% -18,9%

Total % of row 100,0% 026,6% 100,0% 023,8% 100,0% 049,6% 100,0% 100,0%

Generally pauses between turns (pause between) are the most frequent (46.8%), followed by pauses with selection (the ones followed by a verbal response) (27.8%), then by pauses without response (18.9%), and in the end pauses with nonverbal response (6.5%). There are changes between grades (χ2=72.338, df=6, p<.000), change that explains 1.7% of the variance.

Positive corrected residuals indicate that only pauses with selection in 2nd grade and pauses with nonverbal response in 3rd grade are produced more than in the model.

The roles involved in these 2 pause typologies are analysed below (Table 7 and 8). As to pauses with selection, child’s pauses with selection (Table 7) are the most frequent (69.5%), followed by the whole class’ pause (24.1%) and with a very low percentage of teacher’s pauses (6.5%).

It is also possible to observe that there is no significant difference between grades (χ2=5.855, df=4, n.s.).

As to pauses with nonverbal answer (Table 8), it is possible to see that those produced by a child are more frequent (78.4%), followed by those of the whole class (14.2%) and at the end those of a teacher (7.3%).

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 69

TURN-TAKING IN CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS

69

Table 7 Percentage and corrected residuals of the roles of pauses with selection per grade (N=694) Grade 2nd 3rd 4th Total

% Conditional Corrected residuals % conditional Corrected residuals % conditional Corrected residuals % marginal

Child -72,8% 0-1,3% -64,7% 0-1,3% -69,2% 0-0,1% -69,5%

Pause with selection Class Teacher -20,3% -6,9% 0-1,6% -0,3% -30,9% -4,4% 0-2,1% -1,1% -23,8% -7,0% 0-0,2% -0,6% -24,1% -6,5%

Total 100,0%

% Tot. row 031,3%

100,0%

019,6%

100,0%

049,1%

100,0%

100,0%

Table 8 Percentage and corrected residuals of the roles of pauses with nonverbal answer per grade (N=232) Grade 2nd 3rd 4th Total

% Conditional Corrected residuals % conditional Corrected residuals % conditional Corrected residuals % marginal

Pause with nonverbal answer Child Class Teacher -89,9% 0-3,8% 0-6,3% 0-3,0% 0-3,3% 0-0,4% -78,4% -17,6% 0-4,1% 0-0,0% 0-1,0% 0-1,3% -67,1% -21,5% -11,4% 0-3,0% 0-2,3% 0-1,7% -78,4% -14,2% -07,3%

Total 100,0%

% Tot. row 034,0%

100,0%

032,0%

100,0%

034,0%

100,0%

100,0%

There is an interesting result concerning the change in the passage from one grade to another (χ2=15.160, df=4, p=.004), where the percentage of variability of explained role of the class is relatively high (5.6%) and corrected residuals show how passing from 2nd to 3rd grade and then from 3rd to 4th grade represents a change in roles that construct this pauses. A single child produces progressively less pauses while the whole class or the teacher do more, especially in 4th grade.

Objective 2 Our second aim was to identify the differences in turn-taking strategies among teachers and students. Especially we were interested in the different use of: (a) overlapping and collective overlapping; (b) various types of interruptions, assuming that mostly simple, silent and supportive interruptions prevail among teachers, while children are more predisposed to failed interruptions; (c) pauses with selection without answer, assuming that teachers always interfere when there is child’s turn-taking delay (latency). Whole class and other categories were not considered in this analysis due to the low frequency with which they occur.

The analysis of overlapping and collective overlapping (a) showed that the overlapping role changed according to the type of overlapping ( χ2=164.647, df=1, p<.000). When overlapping occurs, a child overlaps with another child or a teacher (and not with whole class turn). The hypothesis that parties in class interaction differ in their turn-taking strategies, especially through overlapping talk and collective overlapping, was therefore confirmed.

Interruptions are seen as the index of power and interpersonal control (Okamoto, Rashotte, & Smith-Lovin, 2002) and it is also evident that a teacher, being the one who regulates class activities and turn taking dynamics, has power over students. We would expect therefore a greater presence of teacher’s simple, silent and supportive interruptions compared to pupils. We would also expect a greater presence of children’s failed interruptions compared to teachers. The analysis of various types of interruptions (b) showed that there was a

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

70

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 70

B. MARONI, A. GNISCI, & C. PONTECORVO

correlation between role and type of interruption ( χ2=436.444, df=3, p<.000). Positive standardized and significant residuals revealed a correlation between failed interruptions and children (18.84, p<.000) and supportive interruptions and teachers (12.54, p<.000). Also the correlations between simple interruptions and children (2.24, p<.05) and silent interruptions and teachers (6.90, p<.000) were significant. The hypothesis on silent, supportive and failed interruptions was confirmed, while children showing more simple interruptions represented an unexpected phenomenon. Teachers therefore interrupt both in order to support child’s turn and to take turn, yet in this case without overlapping with a child. A child, on the contrary, fails in the attempt to take turn but uses overlapping in order to succeed.

In order to analyse children’s latency time (c) we turned to Rowe’s (1974) research that examined if teachers tended to take turns shortly after having selected the next speaker, making short pauses. The hypothesis was that intolerant teachers towards long silences in class tended to interfere whenever child’s turn-taking delay (latency) occurred. The log-linear analysis, based on 2x2x2 table (Time x Previous Role x Next Role), showed that the model offering the best adaptation was the model of conditional independence [PR][TR] (G2=3.3, df=2, n.s.; dependent model G2=19.0, df=3, p<.05). The next role therefore was correlated both with the previous role and with time but these correlations were independent between them. The effect [PR] indicated that there was a relation between the speaker before and after a pause regardless to its length. Corrected residuals and the index of association Yule’s Q showed a strong correlation between the same speaker before and after a pause (Yule’s Q=.65). Therefore the person who stopped talking before a pause started talking after it as well regardless of pause being short or long. At the same time, the effect [TR] revealed that regardless of the speaker before the pause, the speaker following it varied according to its length. The corrected residuals showed that children would start talking after a short pause while it would be a teacher to take turn after longer pauses.

Discussion and conclusions The paces and ways of taking and managing turns are particularly relevant for the study of interaction, because they allow to analyse the role and the involvement of parties in conversatio n. These considerations gain a special meaning in the context of classroom interaction due to the presence of asymmetrical interactive roles (Ugazio & Venini, 1978; Candela, 1999; Gómez Alemany & Mauri Majós, 2000), interactive value of this context and typical sequence of three interactive phases (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Fasulo & Pontecorvo, 1999). The first objective was to describe the progress of class interaction and to analyse the participation of the parties underlining the change of this participation from 2nd to 4th grades. The results showed that children and classes as a whole revealed an increase in turn-taking from 2nd to 3rd and from 3rd to 4th grades, proving therefore a progressively active participation of children in interaction. The analysis of the change of turn-taking strategies revealed differences both in typologies and age. Soft transitions (pause and latching), for instance, decreased from 2nd to 3rd grades, and then while the synchrony continued to decrease in 4th grade as well, the pauses tended to increase. As to various pause types, while pauses between turns remained constant for the three years, pauses with selection had diversified courses, with positives and negative peak in 3rd grade. The change in the use of two types of soft transitions manifested in 3rd grade classes seems crucial. As to non-soft transitions, the change was rather different between various typologies. While interruptions in 3rd grade had a negative peak, simultaneous starts had a positive one. Overlapping and simultaneous starts increased from 2nd to 3rd grade and then tended to stabilize. A similar, at least initially, course of overlapping and simultaneous start could probably be referred to the fact that the latter represented a particular type of the first (Bazzanella, 1994). Moreover, observing thoroughly interruptions, the same course was taken by supportive and simple interruptions that despite a different outcome were characterized by simultaneous discourse.

The appearance of a simultaneous discourse therefore seemed to be a determining element in the change of non-soft transitions from 2nd to 4th grades. Conclusively the change from 2nd to 4th

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 71

TURN-TAKING IN CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS

71

grades seems to be not linear, 3rd grades in fact seems to mark a rupture, that can be as part of a more-way direction movement, a consistent fall or a consistent rise of number of incidents.

Our second objective was to identify the eventual differences between teachers and students in their turn taking strategies; however our assumptions were confirmed only to some extent. The hypothesis on different use of overlapping was especially confirmed, since pupils’ participation in interaction was deliberately encouraged that consequently might have increased overlapping. This encouraged behaviour at times was interpreted by teacher as a moment of confusion, making them gain control over conversation.

Instead the hypothesis on various types of interruptions was confirmed only partially due to the presence of a correlation between simple interruptions and single children. Role asymmetry therefore existed also in interruptions, helping teachers to have a greater power over the course of interaction (Okamoto et al., 2002), despite the failure to control interruptions during simultaneous discourse. The hypothesis on latency was not confirmed since the correlation among the first speaker latency, length and the next speaker did not prove to be significant. However, there seems to be a relationship between the first and the second speaker and another relationship between the latency and the second speaker. Teachers, therefore, after having selected a speaker, tend to take turn independently of the pause length.

Similarly, when a child selected a speaker, the same child would start talking again. In a neovygotskian perspective this results contribute to comprehend how teachers and students in classroom interaction construct an ecology of social and cognitive relations in which the multiparty character affects the scene’s dynamics. In fact, teachers seem to have a specific capacity (called with-itness by Kounin, 1970 cited by Erickson, 1996) with which they conduct classroom events: other studies showed that in ecosystem of classroom there is a mutual and reciprocal influence between all speakers who are also hearers and viewers, but this mutually is not often recognised by teachers.

At least a limitation of the present study should be noted when considering these results. In this work only the main interactions guided by the teacher were analysed, and so children’s talk to each other were omitted, even if it is known as an important zone of interaction, not only on extra curricular stuff, but also with respect to the ‘subject’ going on between teacher-pupils.

In conclusion we would like to mention that additionally to already identified aspects of participative structure and role asymmetry, such elements as simultaneous discourse and children’s class grade are worth being considered. Our study is a transversal research, but a longitudinal studies of these aspects could lead to particularly interesting developments in time and grade, and could identify interactive patterns characterizing teachers’ strategies which could contribute to a better understanding of the teaching-learning process.

Notes 1

2

A “gap” occurs before the current speaker who terminates his or her turn assigns the next speaker, before another party in the interaction self-selects to be the next speaker, or before the current speaker claims further right to the floor in the conversation (Jaworski, 1993). A “lapse” is the ensuing space of non-talk when a current speaker has stopped and no other speaker starts. A “pause” is a silence intra-turn.

The same procedure was applied in a previous research (Orsolini, Pontecorvo, & Amoni et al., 1989).

References Anolli, L. (2002). Intenzione e comunicazione. In L. Anolli (Ed.), Psicologia della comunicazione (pp. 179-206).

Bologna: Il Mulino.

Bailey, T.M., Plunkett, K., & Scarpa, E. (1999). A cross-linguistic study in learning prosodic rhythms: Rules, constraints, and similarity. Language and Speech, 42(1), 1-38.

Bakeman, R., & Gnisci, A. (2005). Sequential observational methods. In M. Eid & E. Dieneer (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (Cap. 6). Washington, DC: APA.

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

72

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 72

B. MARONI, A. GNISCI, & C. PONTECORVO

Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J.M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. New York: CUP. Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995). Analyzing interaction: Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. New York: CUP. Bakeman, R., & Robinson, B.R. (1994). Understanding log-linear analysis with ILOG: An interactive approach.

Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Bazzanella, C. (1994). Le facce del parlare. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

Beattie, G.W., & Butterworth, B.L. (1979). Contextual probability and word frequency as determinants of pauses and errors in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 22, 201-211.

Bortfeld, H., Leon, S.D., Bloom, J.E., Schober, M.F., & Brennan, S.E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44(2), 123-147.

Brown, E.A. (1980). Grammatical incoherence. In H.W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech.

Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 27-37). The Haghe: Mouton Publishers.

Bruneau, T.J. (1973). Communicative silences: Forms and functions. Journal of Communication, 23, 17-46.

Cacioppo, M., & Maroni, B. (2004). I gesti e il turn-taking. Schemi di codifica nella ricerca osservativa. Roma: Edizioni Kappa.

Candela, A. (1999). Students’ power in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 10(2), 139-163.

Clifton, J. (2004). The humanistic lesson: Student primacy in a world of meaningful interaction. Humanising Language Teaching, 3.

Denny, R. (1985). Marking the interaction order: The social constitution of turn exchange and speaking turns. Language in Society, 14, 41-62.

Duez, D. (1982). Silent and non-silent pauses in three speech styles. Language and Speech, 25(1), 11-28.

Duncan, S. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 283-292.

Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom Discourse as Improvisation: Relationships between Academic Task Structure and Social Partecipation Structure in Lessons. In L.C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 153-181). New York: Academic Press.

Erickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: the social and cognitive ecology of teacher-student interaction in classroom conversations. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 29-62). Cambridge: CUP. Fasulo, A., & Pontecorvo, C. (1999). Come si dice? Linguaggio e apprendimento in famiglia e a scuola. Roma: Carocci.

Ford, C.E., & Thompson, S.A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar. Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 13 (pp. 134-184). Cambridge: CUP. Giles, H., & Smith, P.M. (1979). Accomodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In H. Giles & R.N. St.Claire (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 45-65). Oxford: Blackwell.

Gnisci, A., Bakeman, R. (2000). L’osservazione e l’analisi sequenziale dell’interazione. Milano: LED. Goldman-Eisler, F. (1958). The predictability of words in context and the length of pause in speech. Language and Speech, 1, 226-231.

Goldman-Eisler, F. (1961). Hesitation and information in speech. In C. Cherry (Ed.), Information Theory (pp. 162-174).

London: Butterworths.

Goldman-Eisler, F. (1967). Sequential temporal patterns and cognitive processes in speech. Language and Speech, 10, 122-132.

Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Pauses, clauses, sentences. Language and Speech, 15, 103-113.

Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organisation: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.

Gómez Alemany, I. & Mauri Majós, T. (2000). Strategies to regulate content development and interactivity in the classroom. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2, 157-171.

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 73

TURN-TAKING IN CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS

73

Gurevitch, Z. (1998). The break of conversation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 28(1), 25-40.

Hänni, R. (1980). What is planned during speech pauses? In H. Giles, W.P. Robinson, & P.M. Smith (Eds.), Language.

Social psychological perspectives (pp. 321-325). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Jaffe, J., & Feldstein, S. (1970). Rhythms of dialogue. New York: Academic Press.

Jaworski, A. (1993). The power of silence: Social and pragmatic perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jefferson, G. (1985). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (vol. 3, pp. 25-34). London: Academic Press.

Kendon, A. (1992). The negotiation of context in face-to-face interaction. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context (pp. 323-334). Cambridge: CUP. Kounin, J.S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt.

Kurzon, D. (1995). The right of silence: A socio-pragmatic model of interpretation. Journal of Pragmatic, 23, 55-69.

Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. Maroni, B., Gnisci, A., & Pontecorvo, C. (2003). Il ruolo delle pause nell’interazione familiare a tavola con bambini di 3-4 anni. Giornale italiano di psicologia, 1, 129-155.

McHoul, A.W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7, 183-213.

Menghini, D., & Maroni, B. (1999). Socializzare al silenzio: La costruzione sociale del suo significato. Età evolutiva, 64, 102-115.

Okamoto, D.G., Rashotte, L.S., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2002). Measuring interruption: Syntactic and contextual methods of coding conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(1), 38-55.

Orletti, F. (2000). La conversazione diseguale. Roma: Carocci.

Oreström, B. (1983). Turn-taking in English conversation. Lund: Gleerup.

Orsolini, M., Pontecorvo, C., & Amoni, M. (1989). Discutere a scuola: Interazione sociale e attività cognitiva. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, XVI(3), 479-511.

Pedone, R., & Gnisci, A. (2004). Entropy 2: Un programma per il calcolo della dispersione di variabili di risposta categoriali per la ricerca in psicologia. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 31(2), 403-410.

Pontecorvo, C. (Ed.). (1999). Manuale di psicologia dell’educazione. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Rochester, S.R. (1973). The significance of pauses in spontaneous speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 5181.

Rodari, G. (1971). Tante storie per giocare. Roma: Editori Riuniti.

Roger, D., Bull, P., & Smith, S. (1988). The development of comprehensive system for classifying interruptions.

Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7(1), 27-34.

Rowe, R. (1974). Pausing phenomena: Influence on the quality of instruction. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3(3), 203-224.

Sacks, H. (1972). Lectures on conversation (vol. 2). Cambridge: Blackwell.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.

Schegloff, E.A. (1987). Between Micro and Macro: Contexts and Other Connections. In J. Alexander et al. (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp. 207-234). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Schegloff, E.A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1-63.

Scott, R.L. (1993). Dialectical tensions of speaking and silence. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79(1), 1-18.

Sinclair, J.M., & Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils.

London: Oxford University Press.

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

74

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 74

B. MARONI, A. GNISCI, & C. PONTECORVO

Skinner, C.H., Fletcher, P.A. & Henington, C. (1996). Increasing learning rates by increasing student response rates: A Summary of Research. School Psychology Quarterly, 11(4), 313-325.

Taylor, I. (1969). Content and structure in sentence production. Journal Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 8, 170175.

Tobin, K.G. (1983). The effects of wait-time on classroom learning. European Journal of Science Education, 5, 35-48.

Ugazio, V., & Venini, L. (1978). La comunicazione alunno-insegnante. In Enciclopedia della scuola, 9, 120-150.

Milano: ISEDI. Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1-37.

Wiemann, J.M., & Knapp, M.L. (1999). Turn-taking in conversations. In L.K. Guerrero, J.A. DeVito, & M.L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communication reader. Classic and contemporary readings, II ed (pp. 406-414). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Wilson, T.P., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1986). The structure of silence between turns in two-party conversation. Discourse Processes, 9, 375-390.

Cet article analyse le rythme et la gestion de l’interaction en classe comme un élément important du processus d’enseignementapprentissage. Vingt-trois leçons en 12 classes (4 de deuxième de troisième et de quatrième degré, respectivement) appartenant à différentes écoles primaires italiennes ont été observées et enregistrées au vidéo pour un total de 15 heures. L’analyse descriptive des données recueillies et transcrites nous a montré une transformation des interactions entre les enfants et un changement dans les stratégies de prise-d+e-parole (superpositions, interruptions et pauses) en passant du 2ème au 4ème degré. En plus. elle montra que: (1) le parlant, après une superposition, change en fonctions du type de superposition; (2) les enseignants sont différents des enfants dans leur stratégies de prise de parole (l’enseignant interromps avec des tours de parole supportiez, ou silencieux, tandis que les enfants le font avec des interruptions simples ou faillites); (3) l’analyse log-linéaire a révélé que le parlant qui suit est corrélé soit avec le premier parlant soit avec la durée de la pause, mais les deux corrélations sont indépendantes l’une de l’autre. Pour avoir une interprétation des résultats plus précise, d’autres aspects concernant l’interaction éducative ont été considérés.

Key words: Classroom interaction, Sequential analysis, Turn-taking.

Received: August 2006

Revision received: March 2007

Barbara Maroni. Department of Psychology of Development and Socialization Processes, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Via dei Marsi, 78, 00175 Rome, Italy. E-mail: barbara.maroni@uniroma1.it Current theme of research:

Turn-taking in social interaction. Discourse and cognitive activities in classroom interaction. Teacher-child and peer interaction in the acquisition of knowledge. Family dinner conversations. F2F and CMC.

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 75

TURN-TAKING IN CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS

75

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education: Cacioppo, M., & Maroni, B. (2004). I gesti e il turn-taking. Schemi di codifica per la ricerca osservativa. Roma: Edizioni Kappa.

Mancini, I., & Maroni, B. (2004). Analisi conversazionale e analisi sequenziale: Applicazioni possibili alla CMC asincrona? Form@re, edizioni Erickson. http://www.formare.erickson.it/ Maroni, B., & Arcidiacono, F. (2003). The conversation like socialization in educational contexts. In G. Papanikos (Ed.), Education. Primary and Secondary Education (vol. 3, pp. 333-338). ATINER: Atene.

Maroni, B., Gnisci, A., & Pontecorvo, C. (2003). Il silenzio come evento conversazionale nelle cene in famiglia.

Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 1, 129-155.

Pontecorvo, C., & Maroni, B. (2006). Apprendimento. In F. Barale, M. Bertani, V. Gallese, S. Mistura, & A. Zamperini (a cura di), Psiche. Dizionario storico di psicologia, psichiatria, psicoanalisi, neuroscienze (vol. I, 92-95). Torino: Einaudi.

Augusto Gnisci. Department of Psychology, Second University of Naples, Via Vivaldi, 43, 81100 Caserta, Italy. E-mail: augusto.gnisci@unina2.it Current theme of research:

In recent years, he published numerous research articles on discourse and conversation, applied on experimental and natural contexts: legal and courtroom discourse, televised political interviews, family dinner conversations, interaction between mother and son, persuasion strategies in children, gestures communication in little groups, PC and multimedia mediated interaction, etc. His aim is twofold: testing hypotheses for supporting psychosocial theories in applied contexts (Communication Accommodation Theory, Equivocation, Reciprocation) and developing new methodologies for analysing interaction.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education: Albanese, O., Fiorilli, C., Gnisci, A. (in press). Gli insegnanti correggono gli errori: Tra concezioni dellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;intelligenza e pratiche di discorso. Ricerche di Psicologia.

Bakeman, R., & Gnisci, A. (2005). Sequential observational methods. In M. Eid & E. Dieneer (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (Cap. 6). Washington, DC: APA. Gnisci, A., & Pontecorvo, C. (2004). The organization of questions and answers in hostile cross-examination: Turn-byturn manipulation of meanings. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(5), 965-995.

Menghini, D., Gnisci, A., & Pontecorvo, C. (2000). Chi problematizza chi nelle cene in famiglia: Regole condivise e convenzioni familiari. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 2, 347-75.

Quera, V., Bakeman, R., & Gnisci, A. (2007). Observer agreement for event sequences: Methods and software for sequence alignment and reliability estimates. Behaviour Research Methods, 13 February 2007.

Clotilde Pontecorvo. Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Rome La Sapienza, Via dei Marsi 78, 00185, Rome, Italy. E-mail: clotilde.pontecorvo@uniroma1.it Current theme of research:

Discourse and cognitive activities in classroom interaction. Teacher-child and peer interaction in the acquisition of knowledge. Conversations at family dinner time. Everyday life of Italian families, studied with a conversational analysis approach. Early literacy development. Text construction and writing.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education: Pontecorvo, C. (1993). Guest Editor of Special Issue: Discourse and Shared Reasoning. Forms of discourse and shared thinking. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3-4), 189-196.

Pontecorvo, C. (1997). (editor) Writing development. An interdisciplinary view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishinh Company.

ejpe-xxiii-1-quatro:EJPE-XXI-modelo.qxd

76

15-01-2008

13:07

Page 76

B. MARONI, A. GNISCI, & C. PONTECORVO

Pontecorvo, C. (a cura di). (1999). Manuale di Psicologia dellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;educazione. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Pontecorvo, C. (2004). Thinking with Others: The Social Dimension of Learning in Families and Schools. In A.N. Perret-Clermont, C. Pontecorvo, L.B. Resnick, T. Zittoun, & B. Burge (Eds.), Joining society (pp. 227-240).

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Pontecorvo, C., & Arcidiacono, F. (2007). Famiglie allâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;italiana: Parlare a tavola. Milano: R. Cortina.