Despite the attested association between giftedness and high verbal abilities, and despite the central role attributed to classroom discourse analysis in educational research, discourse in gifted classes has not received due scholarly attention. This study takes a first step toward filling this gap. This study offers a microanalysis of a corpus of recorded and transcribed interactions from classes of gifted students in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This study focuses on student initiations and on the ways teachers handle these initiations. It is argued that the preponderance of student initiations in the classes observed sets a fertile ground for dialogic discourse to develop. However, student initiations do not guarantee the emergence of dialogic discourse, since teachers sometimes employ instructional practices that hinder its emergence.
AlexanderR. J. (2004). Towards dialogic thinking: Rethinking classroom talk (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Dialogos.
2.
AlmasiJ. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 314-351.
3.
ApplebeeA. N.LangerJ. A.NystrandM.GamoranA. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685-730.
4.
AukermanM. S. (2007). When reading it wrong is getting it right: Shared evaluation pedagogy among struggling fifth grade readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 56-103.
5.
BerryM. (1981). Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In CoulthardM.MontgomeryM. (Eds.), Studies in discourse analysis (pp. 120-145). London, England: Routledge & Keagan Paul.
6.
Blum-KulkaS. (1997). Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
BoydM. P.MarkarianW. C. (2011). Dialogic teaching: Talk in service of a dialogic stance. Language and Education, 25, 515-534.
8.
BrendefurJ.FrykholmJ. (2000). Promoting mathematical communication in the classroom: Two perspective teachers’ conceptions and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 125-153.
9.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BurbulesN. C.BruceB. C. (2002). Theory and research on teaching as dialogue. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 1102-1121). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
11.
CazdenC. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
12.
ChafeW. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
ChinnC. A.AndersonR. C.WaggonerM. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378-411.
14.
CrossT. L.NeumeisterK. L. S.CassadyJ. C. (2007). Psychological types of academically gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 285-294.
15.
DavisG. A.RimmS. B.SiegleD. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
16.
DillonJ. T. (1985). Using questions to foil discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2, 109-121.
17.
DrewP.HeritageJ. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In DrewP.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3-65). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
18.
EdwardsD.MercerN. (1989). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London, England: Routledge.
19.
EeJ.MooreP. J.AtputhasamyL. (2003). High-achieving students: Their motivational goals, self-regulation and achievement and relationships to their teachers’ goals and strategy-based instruction. High Ability Studies, 14, 23-29.
20.
GaltonM.HargreavesL.ComberC.WallD.PellT. (1999). Changes in patterns of teacher interaction in primary classrooms: 1976-96. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 23-37.
21.
GoodmanY. C.MizrachiN. (2008). “The Holocaust does not belong to European Jews alone”: The differential use of memory techniques in Israeli high schools. American Ethnologist, 35, 95-114.
22.
GutiérrezK. D.LarsonJ. (1994). Language borders: Recitation as hegemonic discourse. International Journal of Educational Reform, 3, 22-36.
23.
HallJ. K.WalshM. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186-203.
24.
HallinanM. T. (1994). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67, 79-91.
25.
JensenJ. M. (1973a). A comparative investigation of the casual and careful oral language styles of average and superior fifth grade boys and girls. Research in the Teaching of English, 7, 338-350.
26.
JensenJ. M. (1973b). Do gifted children speak an intellectual dialect?Exceptional Children, 39, 337-338.
27.
KnuthE.PeressiniD. (2001). Unpacking the nature of discourse in mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6, 320-325.
28.
LefsteinA. (2008). Changing classroom practice through the English National Literacy Strategy: A micro-interactional perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 701-737.
29.
LefsteinA.SnellJ. (2014). Better than best practice: Developing teaching and learning through dialogue. London, England: Routledge.
30.
LemkeJ. L. (1982, April). Classroom communication of science (Final report). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. (Eric Document Reproductive Service No. ED222346)
31.
LinellP. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
32.
LotmanY. (1988). Text within a text. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 26, 32-51.
33.
MehanH. (1979a). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
MehanH. (1979b). What time is it, Denise? Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory Into Practice, 28, 285-294.
35.
MillsC. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: Teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 272-281.
36.
MolinariL.MameliC.GnisciA. (2012). A sequential analysis of classroom discourse in Italian primary schools: The many faces of the IRF pattern. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 414-430. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02071.x
37.
MortimerE. F.ScottP. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
38.
NassajiH.WellsG. (2000). What’s the use of “triadic dialogue”? An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21, 376-406.
39.
NetzH. (2014). Disagreement patterns in gifted classes. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 142-160.
40.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
41.
NystrandM. (1997). Dialogic instruction: When recitation becomes conversation. In NystrandM.GamoranA.KachurR.PrendergastC. (Eds.), Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom (pp. 1-29). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
42.
NystrandM.GamoranA. (1991a). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261-290.
43.
NystrandM.GamoranA. (1991b). Student engagement: When recitation becomes conversation. In WaxmanH. C.WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 256-276). Berkley, CA: McCutchan.
44.
NystrandM.WuL. L.GamoranA.ZeiserS.LongD. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35, 135-198.
45.
Pau-SanH. (2005). The linguistic advantage of the intellectually gifted child: An empirical study of spontaneous speech. Roeper Review, 27, 178-185.
46.
PeledN. (1993). The nature of discourse in new-comers’ classes as enhancing or inhibiting learning: Some examples from Hebrew classes to newcomers. Makhshavot Ktuvot, 10/11, 8-30.
47.
Peled-ElhananN.Blum-KulkaS. (2006). Dialogue in the Israeli classroom: Types of teacher-student talk. Language and Education, 23, 3-54.
48.
PiirtoJ. (1992). Understanding those who create. Dayton: Ohio Psychology Press.
49.
PorathM. (1996). Narrative performance in verbally gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 276-292.
50.
RenzulliJ. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(1), 3-54.
51.
RoweM. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up!Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 43-50.
52.
RymesB. R. (2009). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
53.
SchegloffE. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?”Social Inquiry, 50, 104-152.
54.
SchegloffE. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
55.
SeedhouseP. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
56.
SinclairJ. M.CoulthardM. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
57.
SmithF.HardmanF.WallK.MrozM. (2004). Interactive whole class teaching in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 395-411.
58.
StodolskyS. S.FergusonT. L.WimpelbergK. (1981). The recitation persists, but what does it look like?Curriculum Studies, 13, 121-130.
59.
TannenbaumA. (1992). Early signs of giftedness: Research and commentary. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 104-133.
60.
VygotskyL. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
61.
WaringH. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59, 796-824.
62.
WellsG. (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.
63.
WellsG. (1996). Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 74-101.
64.
WellsG. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
65.
WellsG. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In LeeC. D.SmagorinskyP. (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 51-85). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
66.
WellsG.Mejía-ArauzR. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 379-428.
67.
WertschJ. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: Sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.DobynsS. M.SalvinT. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms (Research Monograph No. 93104). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
69.
WoodD. (1986). Aspects of teaching and learning. In RichardsM.LightP. (Eds.), Children of social worlds: Development in a social context (pp. 191-212). Cambridge, England: Polity.
70.
ZemelA.KoschmannT. (2011). Pursuing a question: Reinitiating IRE sequences as a method of instruction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 475-488.
71.
ZivY. (1998). Hebrew kaze as a discourse marker and lexical hedge: Conceptual and procedural properties. In JuckerA. H.ZivY. (Eds.), Discourse markers (pp. 203-222). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
