Abstract
This article explores the mediational role of classroom discourse in the development of shared understanding in the multiethnic classroom Successful participation in classroom discourse not only requires linguistic and cognitive competence, but also demands cultural knowledge, which often is taken for granted. Research carried out in a multiethnic third grade class in Norway reveals that a discrepancy between teachers’ implicit assumptions of what is “common knowledge” and minority pupils’ lack of background knowledge might impede joint meaning construction. Discourse episodes, illustrating various misunderstandings, are analyzed and compared. The analysis of the discourse focuses on how the topical content, the multiple reference frames applied, and the particular forms of discourse used, jointly create the framework within which development of shared understanding occurs or fails to occur. It becomes apparent that various discourse patterns, creating different premises for pupil participation, afford different ways of dealing with the misunderstandings encountered. It is argued that disparities in understanding should not be looked upon as “transmission errors”, that are something to be avoided in classroom dialogue, but might be viewed as generators of new understandings. The article is based on qualitative analysis of discourse excerpts, using transcribed audio recordings, field notes and interviews.
Résumé
Cet article explore le rôle médiateur du discours dans le développement de la compréhension partagée dans la classe multiethnique. Une participation réussie au discours en classe demande non seulement de compétence linguistique et cognitive, mais aussi de la connaissance culturelle, qui est souvent considérée comme déjà acquise. La recherche, développée dans une classe multiethnique de troisième année en Norvège, montre qu’une divergence entre les suppositions implicites des professeurs sur ce qui est ‘connaissance commune’ et l’absence de connaissances de fond des élèves minoritaires peut empêcher la construction collective du sens. Des épisodes du discours, illustrant plusieurs malentendus, sont analysés et comparés. L’analyse du discours se concentre sur comment le contenu du sujet, les cadres multiples de référence, et les formes de discours particulières utilisées, créent des cadres dans lesquels le développement de la compréhension partagée se produit ou ne se produit pas. Il devient apparent que les différents genres de discours, créant des prémisses différentes pour la participation des élèves, offrent des possibilités différentes pour faire face aux malentendus rencontrés. On argumente que les discordances de compréhension ne devraient pas être perçues comme ‘erreurs de transmission’, qui sont des choses à éviter dans le dialogue en classe, mais qu’elles peuvent être perçues comme des génératrices de nouvelles compréhensions. L’article se base sur l’analyse qualitative d’extraits du discours, en utilisant des enregistrements audio, notes sur terrain et entrevues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abreu, G. de (1999). Learning mathematics in and outside school: Two views on situated learning. In J. Bliss, P. Light, & R. Säljö (Eds.),Learning sites. Social and technological resources for learning (pp. 17–31). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981).The dialogic imagination. Four essays (edited by M. Holquist). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakken, E., Bakken, P.K., & Haug, P.A. (1998).Broene [The Bridges].Kristendomskunnskap med religions- og livssynsorientering for 3. klasse. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. In G. Bateson (Ed.),Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 177–193). New York: Ballantine Books.
Bezemer, J., Kroon, S., Pastoor, L. de Wal, Ryen E., & Wold, A. Heen (in press).Language teaching and learning in a multicultural context. Case studies from primary schools in Norway and the Netherlands. Oslo: Novus.
Cazden, C.B. (1988).Classroom discourse. The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cummins, J. (1984).Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedalogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987).Common knowledge. The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
Elbers, E., & Haan, M. de (2004). Dialogic learning in the multi-ethnic classroom. In J. van der Linden & P. Renshaw (Eds.),Dialogic learning. Shifting perspectives to learning, instruction, and teaching (pp. 17–43). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Ellis, R. (1984).Classroom second language development, Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Ellis, R. (1999).Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Goffman, E. (1974).Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Gullbekk, E. (2002, May).Lessons in dialogical dilemmas in Norway and England. Paper presented at the Current Issues in Classroom Research Conference, Oslo, Norway.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning.Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116.
Hoonaard, W.C. van den (1997).Working with sensitizing concepts. Analytical field research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hundeide, K. (2002). The mind between us.Nordisk Psykologi, 54(1), 69–90.
Lotman, Yu. M. (1988). Text within a text.Soviet Psychology, 26(3), 32–51.
Linell, P. (1995). Troubles with mutualities: Towards a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication. In I. Marková, C.F. Graumann, & K. Foppa (Eds.),Mutualities in dialogue (pp. 176–213). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Mehan, H. (1979).Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mercer, N. (1994). Neo-Vygotskian theory and classroom education. In B. Stierer & J. Maybin (Eds.),Language, literacy and learning in educational practice (pp. 92–110). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N. (1995).The guided construction of knowledge. Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Nelson-Le Gall, S., & Resnick, L. (1998). Help seeking, achievement motivation, and the social practice of intelligence in school. In S.A. Karabenick (Ed.),Strategic help seeking. Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 39–60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nystrand, M. (with Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C.). (1997).Opening dialogue. Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rommetveit, R. (1974).On message structure. A framework for the study of language and communication. London: Wiley.
Säljö, R. (2001).Lœring i praksis. Et sosiokulturelt perspektiv [Learning in practices. A sociocultural perspective]. Oslo: Cappelen.
Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988).Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, W.P., & V.P. Collier (2002).A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence, University of California — Santa Cruz.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1987).Thinking and speech (N. Minick, Trans.). New York: Plenum.
Watson-Gegeo, K.A. (1997). Classroom ethnography. In N.H. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.),Research methods in language and education (pp. 135–144). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Wells, G. (1993).Intersubjectivity and the construction of knowledge. Retrieved December 12, 2003, from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/≈gwells/intersubjectivity.txt
Wertsch, J.V., & Bustamante Smolka, A.L. (1993). Continuing the dialogue. Vygotsky, Bakhtin, and Lotman. In H. Daniels (Ed.),Charting the agenda. Educational activity after Vygotsky (pp. 69–92). London: Routledge.
Wertsch, J.V., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.),Constructivism in education (pp. 159–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1982). Instructional language as linguistic input: Second-language learning in classrooms (pp. 283–296). In L.C. Wilkinson (Ed.),Communicating in the classroom. New York: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The research reported in this article was initially funded by The Norwegian Ministry of Education, Research and Church Affairs and from 2000 by the Norwegian Board of Education.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pastoor, L.d.W. Discourse and learning in a Norwegian multiethnic classroom: Developing shared understanding through classroom discourse. Eur J Psychol Educ 20, 13–27 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173208
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173208