A Multidimensional Coding System For Describing Verbal Interactions Between Teachers and Children

A MULTIDIMENSIONALCODINGSYSTEM
FOR DESCRIBING VERBAL INTERACTIONS

OF TEACHERS AND CHILDREN
Volume 1
Barbara
Zerline
Perman-Cohen
A thesis
submitted
for
the degree of
of Philosophy
Doctor
of Social
in the Faculty
Sciences
of Edinburgh
University
1984
G
V
I declare
that
by myself
and that
this
has been composed

f
the work in it is my own.
thesis
No part
has been submitted
another
degree or qualification
other
University
Barbara
or Institute
Zerline
in support
of this
for
or any
of Learning.
Perman-Cohen
CONTENTS
Volume 1
Acknowledgments
Abstract
i
v
CHAPTER 1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Background of
Previous
Studies
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
the Study
Coding Systems
of Particular
Conceptual
Framework
Introduction
to the
Introduction
to the
Relationship
of the
Relationship
to
Relationship
to
Teacher-Child
Behaviours
of the Coding System

Design
Coding System
Present
Research to Previous
Previous
Coding Systems
Studies
Teacher-Child
of Particular
Significance
of the Study
Limitations
of the Study
Research
13
17
17
20
Behaviours
34
38
CHAPTER2
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
40
CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE CODING SYSTEM
49
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Level 1
Behaviours Coded without Regard to Surrounding Moves
4)
Language Behaviour (Detail
Level 2
Moves
Behaviours Coded in Consideration
of Adjoining
1)
Pausing Behaviour (Detail
2)
Behaviour (Detail
Turntaking
Level 3
Assigning Pedagogical Functions to Moves
Structuring
Soliciting
Responding
Reacting
between Responding and Reacting
Differentiating
Level 4
50
53
59
Moves
64
The Manner in Which and the Degree to Which

Pedagogical
Are Carried
Functions
Out
(details
3-5)
Solicitations
5,6)
Responses (details
Reactions
3.5
Level
(details
3,5)
Establishing
Relationships
Among Moves
(details
6,7)
Solicitations
(details
6,7)
Reactions
7)
Responses (detail
78
CHAPTER 4
4.1
RELIABILITY
Reliability
100
OF THE CODING SYSTEM
102
of Listening
Syllable
Count
Words
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Reliability
Reliability
Reliability
Conclusions
CHAPTER 5
5.1
5.2
1
over
115
the Nature
Child's
the
Control
Exercised
through
Solicitations
Control
Exercised
through
Pausing
Matter
of Subject
across
with Other Behaviours
Taken by the Teacher

Child's
131
in Response
Participation
Teacher Reactions
Teacher Solicitations
Research Questions Deriving
of the Data
from Preliminary
Analysis
Summary and Conclusions
139
150
155
References
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
124
Segments
Feature-3
to the
5.5
and Turntaking
2
over the Unfolding
of the subject Matter
Unfolding
of Subject Matter within a Segment
Feature
Control
Actions
5.4
and Extent
Participation
Unfolding
Interaction
5.3
114
POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS FOR ANALYSIS
Feature
Control
of
107
109
110
111
of Move Boundaries
Function
of Pedagogical
of the Details
A
B
C
D
Symbols, and Conventions

Abbreviations,
Summary of the Coding System
The Picture Poster
Segment Divisions,
Samples of Transcripts,
and Topic Sentences
160
161
171
172
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
One of the purposes

the
importance
data.
of the present
of
focusing
on interrelationships
But as the
research
progressed,
importance
friends,
also
and family,
who enabled
Just as combinations
illuminating
all
of
the
this
research
of teacher
than individual
interaction
between
and child
behaviours
enabled more to be achieved
than could
of
great
colleagues,
to be accomplished.
behaviours
observed
are more
in isolation,
who were associated
people
that
the
of
among aspects
became clear
it
interrelationships
the
are
was to demonstrate
research
this
with
so the
research
have been accomplished
by any
one individual.
A Thouron Scholarship
Pennsylvania
initial
this
and funding
of the Thourons
research
resolution
that
for
this
as well
as to its
fostering
to complete
Mrs. A. M. Mitchison
this
work.
The patience
Sciences
University
and Dr. Harry
University
of New York provided
throughout
this
project.
have been my dear friends
Levitt
of Edinburgh,
Dr. Terry
of
and
Studies
Postgraduate
and Miss I. S. Geddie,
My supervisors,
creates
to the spirit
greatly
Committee and the Senatus of the University

especially
the
was the
relationships
viability.
of the members of the Social
It
research.
They
have
thus
contributed
-
understanding.
of
by Mr. and Mrs. John Thouron provided
and supported
opportunity
conviction
awarded to me by the University
and
made it
possible
Myers of Edinburgh
City
the
Center
Graduate
the
of
of
advice,
Of outstanding
Nancy Drucker
-direction,
importance
and encouragement
to this
research
Drucker
Dr.
Henry
and
whose
understanding
of the communicative
relationships
created
process
in which this
a climate
in
importance
and its
to
was able
research
flourish.
A number of professionals
tributed
their
addition
to my supervisors,
expertise
Pennsylvania
and Dr.
focus
truly
on the
of Hunter
College,
University,
of
support
also
but
of
for
aspects
Dr.
Rindskopf
study.
the Graduate
Center
provided
and much"caring
Mrs. Norah North,,

Oxford University
of- interpersonal
Montgomery of Edinburgh
the early
stages
The contribution
numerous hours
of the data.
only
was
Irving
Mrs.
Reid
Esseline
secretarial
assistance
of Education
of teaching
provided
of
deaf
Coffman at the University

to love
guidance
the study
George
in
and direction
research.
research
to various
attitude
that
administrative
and human interaction.
of the principals
in this
participated
in New York.
and Erving
University
of this
of City
gave advice
from whom I learned
communication
Lahey
Margaret
Center
the essential
not
me to
Norma Rees and Dr.
Dr.
me to the field
were the first
Dr.
of
helped
College
at the Institute
Drs. Ray Birdwhistell
of Pennsylvania
the University
of
as well.
my tutor
introduced
In
project.
College
provided
to continue
research
this
the Graduate
of
reliability
this
children.
of
to
Center
con-
the data.
of Teachers
the
of disciplines
at Teachers
important
David
Gerbner
R. M. Wolf
a warm smile
positive
George
Dr.
of
stages
Ann Mulholland
the Graduate
of
various
and Dr.
importance
Hochberg
at
from a variety
of the schools
cannot be overstated.
aspects
of this
toward the work in their
The teachers,
children,
project--from
schools,
parents,
that
They devoted
creating
to reviewing
a
parts
and the residential
.,
ii
staff
associated
research
the coding
been developed
Straisman,
coding
their
experience
and insights.
their
conviction
that
impaired
development,
were
a source
Hope Cooper
There
research.
arduous
task
through
its
Edinburgh;
of
typing
Laura
of
to
the
Schachter provided important
St.
were generous
Johns University,
in making their
Heron
Maria
Laskowitz,
Nancy Ehrlich,
completion
technical
The Graduate Center of the City

College,
Gail
manual
this
library
by the
as it
went
and Pippa
Wood in
Diaz,
and Robin
Reinowitz
who provided
editorial
Hope
in
Harvey
thesis.
support.
University
Queens College,
various
me in
McCue, Clara
this
of
of
work
assisted
coding
Blum,
Mitchell
language
who were undaunted
the
as
as well
to hearing-
the day-to-day
Reinowitz
development:
of
The assistance
in
strength
and retyping
in
research
many typists
Beth, Kobliner,
was invaluable
of
without
to the work,
would be of value
and Robin
were also
Danny Clivner,
New York.
advice,
Adler
many stages
Adler,
of
task of creating
difficult
more
much
devotion
field
the
who served as
I
'Their
euch a tool
and to
children
project.,
The formidable
have been that
would
Carroll,
and Gerne
O'Connell,
and coders of the data.

system
of Barbara K.
and fortitude
the patience
without
could not have
it
design,
own
system was of my
Jane Pattimon
transcribers
Cooper
of this
to the conduct
were vital
each school
as well.
While
the
with
resources
of New York,
and Hofstra
available
Teachers
University
to me.
My peace-of-mind was sustained because of the caring people who

in which my son could
provided
an environment
when his
mum was involved
with
himt
Mimi Lesser,
Maslen played
a special
in her "project"
Connie Davids,
role
in this
Lit
blossom
even
grow and
and couldn't
and Lelia
research
Hodge.
be actively
Dr. Roger
because of his ability
to listen.
physical
In addition,
assistance
several
and moral
our Havurah group created

strength
Children
in Bayside,
New York,
my need to take time off
Finally,
The members of
in which I could
renew my
to its
work and see it
on this
of St.
and staff
were generous
in their
for
Hospital
Mary's
of
understanding
to put the final
from work in order
I must mention
and significantly,
and Paul Perman and Hrs.

is all
communication
countless
provided
in order.
manuscript
Edith
an atmosphere
The administration
completion.
kinds.
of all
support
to carry
and conviction
and friends
relatives
the role
of my parents
Frank Cohen who have taught
about and have sustained
my study
me what
in
of it
ways.
More than
anyone,
my husband
Hiles
and my son Uriel
are
0
responsible
for
companionship,
necessary
know better
the accomplishment
of this
humor, understanding,
to complete
the three
v'nishmah--by
each other, and to what I found in the data,

from the experience.
the
and shared sense of purpose
the work. Together
the meaning of na'aseh
They provided
project.
of us have come to
listening
we have all
actively
learned
We can now take what we have learned
it.
iv
to
much
and share
ABSTRACT
The present
research
teachers
of
actions
the
of
on data
based
dyadic
general
Great
Britain.
a wide
range
of
competencies
behaviours
communicative
in
behaviours
such
units
(soliciting,
for
both. teachers
(b)
and
can be studied.
("details"),
level,
to study
general
listener,
the child's
as well
Each move is coded with
including:
conversational
pausing,
function,
dividing
function
and link
of the teacher
as
be
can
as solicitor,
process
to seven categories
language,
to other
of
expanded over
the role
turntaking,
the
to each move.
structuring)
respect
coding
a pedagogical
assigning
in the teaching-learning
role
these
of conversation
for
are greatly
(a)
to be
developed
the pedagogical
and children
population.
aspects
procedures
reacting,
systems so that
and as active
described,
the
and for
responding,
those found in other

reactor
("moves"),
and codes describing
The categories
reacting
includes
It
processes.
into
conversation
in
easier
on various
studies
research
systems and other

and discourse
than
a population
is
it
thus,
tend
teachers
their
of
in
teachers
their
system is also based on previously
The coding
function
and those
and affective
In addition,
them.
in
were studied
children
cognitive,
amongst
tapes
on audio
children
is
system
and their
Hearing-impaired
in many respects;
exaggerated
The coding
recorded
conversations
the
as one
process
process.
linguistic,
can be found
to facilitate
is
teaching-learning
hearing-impaired
between
in
two schools
because
in
inter-
the verbal
coding
purpose
communicative
collected
setting
Its
the
of
study
for
a system
and children.
interdisciplinary
instance
is
cognitive
moves.
A conceptual
divides
level
teacher
conversational
design
for
in better
Three
were
response
exercise
they solicit,
of
of
teacher
of
over the nature
the
over
matter
as well
can be described.
response
to the nature
feedback
to the child
of his
their
in
that
teachers
participation
pausing
levels
and turntaking
over the unfolding
in sequences of moves within
as in sequences of segments.
The actions
and extent
that
the unfolding
participation.
of a child's
by teachers
exercised
is reflected
of the interaction,
and extent
as through
the subject
child's
taken by the teacher
of the child's
control
and the language and cognitive
they prescribe
The control
setting
the
systems
and extent
by the
exercised
the conversational
the coding
the nature
and extent
as well
and correctness
focus
and the actions
behaviour.
of thought
other
are
system
of some of the coded data suggests
analysis
by the responses
for
which was conducted
features
over
control
matter,
control
the
that
as a model
the coding
of
of reliability
primary
to the nature
Preliminary
model
a useful
suggested
can serve
reliability
test
teacher
the
of the subject
further
is
system
coding
testing
as the
participation,
It
interrelated
by the
exercised
suggested
is
this
that
of
the
of
aspects
upon other
dependence
of
than 907. agreement between coders.
closely
selected
the degree
in
each higher
levels,
five
into
that
interaction.
The general
outlined.
resulted
the
of
coding
Procedures
is
It
interaction.
verbal
for
level
that
context.
and format
systems
to
developed
was
system
the coding
increase
a relative
assigned
coding
for
behaviours
and child
reflecting
behaviours
for
framework
he can use to evaluate
participation,
participation
trains
in
provide
the appropriateness
and also an opportunity
vi
segments
Thus,
taken by teachers
of the child's
of
for
the
teacher
to continue
the type and degree of control
or alter
previously
used.
On the basis
hypothesized
cognitive,
nature
of
is
through
beliefs
especially
their
internalized
valuable
caregivers.
theoretical
cognitive,
roles
for
that
the
the
of
behaviours.
is also
system
population
time,
in
be used
might
as well,
each a set
in
studying
and may be
of children
to have potential
of the interdependence
such
interactions.
the interactions
said
conveyed
are
creating
future
in
serves
Over
the
about
messages
participants
influence
coding
studying
understanding
and affective
that
of
by which
The process
language
functions
the
in the general
It
thought
linguistic,
the
children.
by each participant,
that
suggested
interaction
is
and patterns
and expectations
is
It
the
and about
are
of
It
about
combinations
messages
verbal
discussed.
the
is
hearing-impaired
between
influence
may greatly
growth
conversation,
conversation,
of
teachers
interactions
of
quality
and affective
may occur
analysis
preliminary
the
and their
children
this
that
of
it
the data
of
for
and
advancing
our
of the linguistic,
components of the teaching-learning
process.
vii
Chapter
INTRODUCTION
have been made to further
Numerous attempts
the
process
between
communication
of
functions
language
in
particular,
the
Researchers
from a variety
of disciplines
for
many reasons.
Some researchers
subject
the
understanding
process
others
have described
cultural
information
investigated
that
is,
the role
their
such as pauses
efforts
have been recorded
adults
learned
aspects
communicative
them into
functions
There
still
Others
is
how
on
focused
have
others
process,
Some
of the school.
aspects
have concentrated
multiple
behaviours
that
techniques.
has contributed
a fuller,
of
Some have
and analysing
of language as it
and children.
from
individual
in
and development;
in the context
by observational
Each of these studies

various
process
this
have been interested
in the teaching-learning
and turntaking.
on describing
process.
acquisition
while
of language
have investigated
this
in
and,
have investigated
processes.
transmitted,
the communicative
researchers
process,
discourse
is
serves
language
of
and children
adults
of
our understanding
functions
more integrated
in
between
in communication
a need now to synthesize
language
of
to our understanding
conversation.
what
understanding
Dore
has been
of
the
(1979,
p. 360) has stated:

deal
At the very least,
with
a model of conversation
must
form,
the levels
of propositional
grammatical
context,
illocutionary
function,
cognitive
process,
conversational
frame.
Hints as to how each of these
procedure
and social
domains operate
in the literature,
across
are available
integrate
the
is
to
disciplines....
it
try
to
time
several
integration
this
insights
into
these domains and to bring
for
in
test
to
bear on actual
models
order
conversation
observational
adequacy if possible.
The task
of
functions
in
of
analysis
the
individual
various
studied
both
researchers
may not
their
of
language
in
to
the
have been added.
systems
have
and they
in
context:
particular
part
is
adults
setting
language
place
a valuable
in
conversation.
a form
discourse
between
direction....
of
and where
the direction
and for
introducing
of
1980)
study
the
discourse,
and ending
adults
have
and Hymes,
John,
found
topics....
the
that
school
and functions
structures
a need to begin
deciding
in
and children
has acknowledged
for
in one
studied
were
has much more structure
one participant
the
of language in the
(Cazden,
They perceived
"which
system.
and children
conversations
to
this
the functions
Wood, McMahon, and Cranstoun,
1972;
of
Many researchers
settings.
educational
coding
has been designed,
these
coding
important
have not
of multidimensional
system,
between
exchange
communicative
process
or
notice,
certain
which
that
aspects
may have escaped
communicative
A means of
the coding
enable
will
In addition,
study.
become an integral
To develop
This
among these
that
features
been significant
to
and refined
range.
previously,
have been
that
interrelationships
may have been difficult
previously
for
precision
have been studied
features
and their
are
system
coding
a single
interaction
verbal
of
investigate
to
in
These have been elaborated
previously.
increase
with
aspects
language
to facilitate
in order
process,
Combined
process.
a means of
the ways that
way some of
communicative
that
develop
to
was
research
present
in an integrated
describing
that
the
to
such
all
studies
and
responsibility
who shall
and where
of
speak when,
participants
trying
were genuinely
p.
6).
It
instance
then,
was,
the
Because no coding
of
for
behaviours
the
that
learning
three
process
affective
features
and,
in
the
of
teacher
child's
the questions
through
prescribes,
plays
level
of
the child's
responses).
(2)
The control
exercised
conversation,
and
The three
1978).
organization
overall
makes while
she is
move the content

of
(3)
and extent
of
of
or
The actions
of
the
thought
the
spite
the
of
of
the
over
cognitive
of
(e. g.,
the
decisions
the
teacher
concerning
and when to
stop
when to
for
introduced).
teacher
child's
child
the unfolding
the
process
the
the
role
and the
conversation
forward
participation
the
the
teaching
already
by the
language
and
to which
the extent
teacher
matter;
conversation
taken
in
in
language
child's
course
subject
engaged
of
content
the
by the
over the nature
she asks,
as the
as well
during
matter
subject
(e. g.,
participation
the
train
teaching-
the
cognitive,
(Perman,
by the teacher
exercised
in
repair
in
are:
(1) The control
the
of
suggested
linguistic,
by children
attained
focus
investigator
on the
particular,
features
primary
be influential
well
might
as the
by this
research
focus
interrelated
closely
selected
all
a particular
selected
Three
were
Related
competencies
features
extent
this
to describe
attempt
investigator
setting
system.
these
research.
to be studied.
conversational
the coding
this
specific
and children--that
adults
system can possibly
conversation,
aspects
of
in
1975,
and Sinclair
situation--a
between
occurring
to be explored
was chosen
the
teaching-learning
communication
of
(Coulthard
to communicate"
in
(e. g.,
response
to
continuing
initiating
the nature
with
a different
her
own
train
of thought{
her own train
These consisted
system.
for
schools
for
chosen
and the
the
pilot
that
influence
groups
the
the dynamics
and their
children
because
they
of
teachers
or
able
its
content
for
children
linguistic,
and affective
span a wider
facilitates
to
take
granted.
range than among the general
of
are
deaf
and exaggerated
the normal
differences
levels
varying
of
more evident
and
This
population.
of teacher
the study. of the effect
by deafness
Second,
competencies
data
the deaf
many of
who have attained
among hearing-impaired
cognitive,
of
seem to be more pronounced

being
were
preliminary
Behaviours
process.
two
children
imposed
communication
teaching
without
conversation
First,
as a teacher
of
the
of
converse
Hearing-impaired
two reasons.
difficulties
from
chosen
and children
investigator
the
of
of the coding
the development
children.
for
of thought).
train
to the child's
teachers
hearing-impaired
experience
suggested
of
and going on with
contribution
deferring
of thought;
groups were chosen for
Pilot
rules
the child's
acknowledging
behaviours
on certain
outcomes in children.
The coding
in chapter
described
by others,
itself
lashing
reported
utilizing
system
was developed
2 and also
which are reviewed
is described
reliability
in chapter
the coding
on the
in consideration
in this
in chapter
3.
Possible
the data
of the studies
The coding
used for
directions
system are offered
for
research
in chapter
5.
done
system
estab-
testing
of the reliability
chapter.
of
The procedures
and the results

4.
basis
are
and analysis
1.1
BACKGROUNDOF THE STUDY
PREVIOUS CODING SYSTEMS

Early
Researchers
In an effort
classrooms,
focused
early
to understand
the teaching-learning
namely,
on the
study
interaction.
of
He recognized
teachers
were needed
teachers
and in
defining,
that
behaviours
classifying,
teaching
facilitate,
as those
teaching
into
deal
acts
in
with
qualities
particular
of
into
teachers
deal
with
such as
(1959)
Hughes
that
she attempted
impact
and their
teaching
teaching
the
those
control,
development,
content
of
strategies
as well
frequencies
By calculating
categories,
of
categories
those
of
responsiveness.
each of
about
and admonishing.
that
her
the
a theory
the categories
and those
that
of
evaluating,
acts
describing
in
step
developing
subsequently
He classified
process.
divided
as a first
classroom
the actions
of
the
was one of
and to analyse
descriptions
that
was
research
early
(1950,1960)
categories
in
process
process,
Smith
teaching.
to develop
researchers
the communicative
to
on what
of
infer
a student
learns.
By 1964, efforts
to
expanded
year
Aschner,
conjunction
what
include
the
process
the
study
the
who was studying

Gallagher,
introduced
student
does
on students.
between
in
of
the
with
relationships
individuals
to understand
in
order
behaviour
teaching
the
to evaluate
They were
concerned
the verbal
actions
the course
and conduct
of
of
gifted
idea
of
with
looking
of
tracing
and responding
also
the
were
that
in
children
effect
classroom
In
students.
of
the
process
at
teaching
sequential
actions
instruction
of
(1961,
Throughout
p. 120).
learning
(1963,1970)
Flanders
by developing
between
interaction
a few categories
were
teachers
were coded
behaviour
were
tradition
of
previous
teachers
from
their
were
also
lacked
major
forward
of
sequences
for
chosen
sought
were
study
of
the
true
because
it
introduced
the behaviours
in
the
of
characteristics
Flanders'
of
limited
work
they
and that
represented
system
teaching-learning
study
the
others
while
followed
infer
Flanders'
Nevertheless,
in
influence,
to
of
the categories
The shortcomings
behaviours.
is--especially
This
research
consistency.
step
that
in addition,
teachers;
designations
These
asking
praising,
Some of
as indirect
of
have been conducted
for
students.
influence.
the variables
that
for
Flanders'
many studies
feelings,
were coded
designated
as direct
labeled
and children
directions
for
that
such as accepting
and giving
questions,
teacher
provided
Categories
then.
since
climate
categories
students.
impetus
the
works
earlier
a number of
of
and their
teachers
of
on these
elaborated
greatly
behaviours
on classroom
work
efforts
scheme consisting
a coding
the
the teaching-
to study
continued.
process
describing
the 1960's,
process.
looking
a means of
at
had been coded.
that
Taba et al.
Though
of
direct
stage
influence
for
current
Elzey,
the
these
these
coding
researchers
present
that
studies
The first
and Levine
of
of
on the
subsequent
work.
The work
because
the work
(1964)
major
are
in
was closely
they
developed
system,
their
study
took
work
to
was the work

school
elementary
related
to have been
related
more closely
subsequent
on thinking
educators
system
coding
cannot
be said
to
into
the
set
the
the
of Taba,
children.
current
consideration
work
the
importance
of the overall
context
process;
which particular
behaviours
manner that
expresses
other
affect
Taba, as
behaviours.
reflected
on the research
the thoughts
of the current
investigator,
principal
to the ways in
they gave recognition
thus,
teaching-learning
exchange in the
of the verbal
in a
done previously
investigator
as
well:
of teacher
The fundamental
trouble
with both studies
is
that
teacher
effectiveness
of
characteristics
and rating
both are based on an inappropriate
paradigm which divides
behaviours,
discrete
competencies,
teaching
of
as a series
in
is
which
Teaching
complex
organic
an
or characteristics.
response or
such as an effective
act,
each individual
depending
different
meaning
a
acquires
structuring,
content
situation.
of the whole teaching-learning
upon the nature
(1964, p. 43)
This
teaching-learning
process
to describe
codes
levels
the
thinking
of
In
strategies.
the current
of
more than
process--that
events
ongoing
in
by which
higher
children.
ry
Bellack
et
the
between
"evolutionary"
teacher
interaction,
and lower
while
provided
levels
of
the
into
in
look
to
at
of
are
on
consideration,
the
teaching
the
to
relation
is
situation
a means of
thinking
and the
them as teaching
nature
behaves
out
of
sets
Taba had an effect
took
system
three
of
she set
defining
of 'the
acts
behaviours
teaching
contributions,
coding
colleagues
individual
development
In addition,
the way the
Taba and her
Also,
the
these
her
the
ones,
is,
Taba to
behaviours,
of
to
because
earlier
of
students.
addition
work
led
context
relationship
and combinations
patterns
the
of
consideration
the
tracing
"unfolding.
the
stimulated
"
process
in
al.
0
The work of Bellack

influential
and his
in the development
colleagues
of, the current

7
(1966) was also

coding
system.
While
Bellack's
had different
work
to
research
the
current
system
was conducted
around
foci
made different
the
purpose
the
provided
an interest
set
of
of
teachers
the
language
serves
in
language
serves
and the meanings
between
teachers
language
the' pedagogical
said,
content
language
significance
rules
by identifying
that
govern
the
one could
children,
Brophy
functions
functions
interaction
each speaker
and the
talk,
was important.
the
rules
lie felt
that
and
"
follow
implicitly
participants
better
the
of
the functions
understand
discourse.
and Good
Brophy
of
variety
andGood
verbal
description
of
possible
was developed
a view
to understanding
influenced
teachers.
measures
developed
of
both
work
a coding
teachers
to describe
the
that
focused
cognitive
are
on dyadic
and affective
high
behaviours.
for
the
coding
behaviours
with
and low achievers
communicated
interaction
included
allowed
Their
teacher
by which
that
also
behaviour.
differential
process
system
and that
student-initiated
by expectations
Their
of
(1970)
behaviours
system
are
what
up
he had
an understanding
come to serve in classroom
verbal'actions
the
the verbal
speaker's
dividing
"moves, " made by teachers
or
in making these moves, and thereby

that
the
coding
addition,
and the
identified
conversation
the
study
In
in
For Bellack,
turns,
verbal
of
His
to examine
transmitted
Bellack
system
a scheme for
teachers
In order
classroom.
the communication.
of
itself.
with
of
contributions
of
a coding
and children.
behaviour
and children,
kinds
to develop
his
as Taba's,
same time
teaching
studying
in
the
out
investigator
present
interaction
the verbal
and thus
Bellack
work.
for
primarily
the
to
them by their
and included
Coulthard
and Sinclair
The coding
that
research
was carried
communicative
interaction
developed
one in
of
teachers
was to
purpose
their
in
based
they
(2)
they
and (3)
system;
interaction
verbal
(1)
ways:
the
by linguists
This
coding
is
relevant
(1975),
and Sinclair
Taba and Bellack;
to develop
processes.
their
they
from
classroom
to
the current
the
ideas
in
which
setting
a classroom
the
approached
whose
system,
on some of
system
chose
the
of
the verbal
coding
was developed
and children
by Coulthard
on aspects
for
system
discourse
study
several
both
Another
the
some of
represent
by educators
out
process.
of
so far
discussed
systems
the perspective
the
of
study
discourse
of
processes.
and Sinclair
Coulthard
and functional
structural
In
framework.
to
those
asked
developing
by this.
How are
such as:
aspects
their
of
successive
utterances
and how does he do it?
participants
take
from
the
others
at
coding
system
developed
interaction,
felt
that
categories
(1975,
but
to focus
could
Flanders'
of
felt
in
not
were related
the
the
introduced
new topics
directly
was not
the
tasks
to
consistent
linguistic
data,
in
which
had been
the
linguistic
data.
enough:
a few of
but
by
in Taba's
interested
devised,
she
on cognitive
developed
systems
coding
categories
be related
to
listener
and
speaker
of
the
do the other
all,
at
They were
work.
particular
system
interaction,
Who controls
How are
considered
their
that
similar
p. 4)
and Sinclair
outset
How, if
questions
verbal
related?
to another?
one participant
Coulthard
asked
How do the roles
control?
ones ended?
and old
they
studying
a linguistic
within
concerning
conversation
pass
discourse
system,
investigator
in
interested
were primarily
others
They
his
were not.
and Sinclair
not
and structural
discourse,
of
analysis
as their
certain
with
discourse
of
they
that
They
by
was defined
as it
to
out
the
shortcomings.
the move,
the
set
in
advance
as a major
system
although
unit
discourse
of
analysis
doing
for
a basis
as providing
Bellack's
They recognized
adopted
system
Coulthard
framework,
a linguistic
within
work
his
viewed
functional
do.
did
Bellack
Although
Bellack.
Wells
Dore,
Dore has argued
that
(1979,
language
learning
of
studied
the
devised
by his
talk
of
nursery
criteria:
grammatical
status,
and contextual
the
to
the
study
school
form,
In
illocutionary
of
force,
(p.
devised
cognitive
content
and discourse
pre-school
children
(Wells,
1973).
of
because
a variety
Wood et
al.
of
The psychologist
press)
between
also
than
communication
recognized
children
situations
Wood and his

the
and their
His
was done outside

his
is
and children
include
structure
research
were considered
in
scheme
upon four
children,
scheme to
function,
aspects
in
the home setting
colleague
approach
important
interpersonal
of the talk
included
the current
were
work
studied.
Howarth et al.
of
teachers.
They have been analysing
studying
of
many more
importance
10
he
conversational
colleagues
adults
a coding
view,
353)
pre-school
between
conversation
based
the
his
a coding
using
scheme is
Dore's
the homes of
to support
order
children
relevance.
in
Wells
to mention.
337).
in
role
a crucial
plays
the work of Wells and his
setting,
school
p.
team.
research
Although
conversation
conversations
(1982;
in
between
conversations
system
transcripts
coded
of
conversational
control,
terms
pp.
moves were
the
of
deaf
in
in
functions
(1980).
into
classified
the
which
being
in
displayed
which
of
was analysed
speech
In
Wood
"level
of
categories
teacher's
in
first,
two stages:
a coding
teachers,
and their
children
conversations
" and second,
using
by Wood, McMahon, and Cranstoun
between
conversations
teachers
and their
children
devised
originally
coding
deaf
in
(1982,
each utterance
297-298).
STUDIES'OF PARTICULAR TEACHER-CHILD BEHAVIOURS

to studies
In addition
systems,
coding'
effect
based
categories
behaviour
child
coding
systems.
Rowe's
studies
It
pauses
and from
by teachers
the nature
their
to
individual
studied
previously
of
aspects
the nature
integrates
system
of
and
new
aspects
particular
teacher-
of
in multidimensional
appeared
investigator
this
preliminary
of
the
of
from
work with
and children
The work
plays
the data
of
M. B. Rowe (1974a,
in
role
each in
1974b,
the
the use of
that
an important
participation
in
experience
determining
the
1974c)
confirmed
0
findings.
Rowe observed
time
of
development
the
pausing
and extent
conversation.
these
have not
that
of
studies
in
to understand
an effort
The present
on these
was apparent
classroom
in
behaviours.
those
have
researchers
behaviour
teacher-child
of
various'
have resulted
that
after
asking
pauses
that
most
a question.
produced
results
teachers
pause
She found
such as (1)
11
that
for
a very
increasing
an increase
period
of
the
length
of
the
length
of
short
in
(2) an increase
responses;
appropriate
(4) an increase
teachers
(3) a decrease
responses;
in incidences
as relatively
basis
for
(1974b,
Various
studies
is
pausing
in
utterances
investigator
with
some hearing-impaired
children
the
of
violation
of
conversations
with
communicative
Bennett
the coding
that
speech
"rules"
for
during
interjected
were
found
to be
This
children.
for
significance
potential
with
replete
the
process.
Duncan (1972);
1974b, 1974c);
Sacks,
(1974); Duncan and Niederche (1974); and
and Jefferson
(1981),
speech
some deaf
to have great
and observation
revealed
are
to
related
closely
accepted
and simultaneous
The works of Rowe (1974a,
Schlegoff,
the normally
Interruption,
utterance,
was thought
observation
study
in
conversation.
characteristic-of
the
system.
the data
at
by this
speaker's
another
look
many years
in
of
provided
coding
process
over
spoken
turns
taking
in the current
A preliminary
turntaking.
conversations
in the variety
Rowe's research
of the teaching-learning
classrooms
by
cited
turntaking
of
A feature
p. 81).
to respond;
from students
of responses
these behaviours
coding
in the failures
(5)
an increase
and
slow;
moves made by children
but
in the number of unsolicited
among others,
in the current
of turntaking
in the development
were influential
coding
of
system.
Other studies
Other researchers
particular
participation
Who studied
teacher
have shown there
behaviours
by children.
questioning
and the nature
and turn-allocation
12
of
and extent
The work of Berninger

behaviour
between
to be interaction
(1981)
and Garvey
in
discourse,
child
and function
in interrogative
consideration
of
current
influenced
coding
comprises
that
system
but
Thus,
awareness=that-different
teacher-child
of
the
aspects
behaviours
conversation
context.
conversation
are
context.
The five
following:
Level
to
Viewed
characterized
levels
of
level
that
in, this
as being
the
are
the
conversation.
behaviour
five
more or
of
aspects
less
framework
the
At each
levels.
the various
conceptual
in
the degree
on other
way,
of
behaviours
of
in
light
and child
and child
increase
the
the
context
into
in
in
with
system
of teacher
on the
organic
act
was designed
a relative
assigned
or child
the coding
have been divided

is
there
the
of
may be understood
which
teacher
of
teacher
teaching-learning
only
degrees
setting
level
higher
the
can be understood
aspects
to differing
the
of
an awareness
some of
of which
acts.
The various
reflect
Each individual
aspects,
most
surrounding
dependent
in
categories
of
and analysis
must
process.
numerous
isolation,
the
description
a coding
of
of
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE CODING SYSTEM
To facilitate
nature
the development
aspects
system.
1.2
process,
a few specific
between
structure
Their
sequences are examples.
relationships
behaviour
verbal
(1978) on utterance
and the work of Mishler
dependence
of
the
aspects
dependent
are
of
on
the
1 comprises
coded without
regard
behaviours
for
of teachers
surrounding
13
behaviours
and children
that
or utterances.
be
can
It
describes
behaviours
a single
interact
accordance
with
In
communicative
rules
on the mechanics
are
the
of
in
coded
of
the context
structural
features
of
one preceding
pedagogical
function
of
a speaker's
utterance.
3 codes
Level
utterance
of
and child
accepted
2 behaviours
Level
to certain
relationship
a teacher
normally
focuses
it
one behaviour
level.
to which
certain
Only
context.
this
at
degree
particular,
exchange.
or following
simplest
considered
the
in
their
their
2 describes
discourse.
of
is
speaker
Level
in
with
describe
to
respect
Where level
2 codes
utterances,
level
the
the
depended
3 codes
preceding
only
on the
the
features
on structural
depend
in
utterance
context
"
conversation.
of
and meaning
the
of
the
utterances.
4 codes describe
Level
which
pedagogical
functions
out.
While
3 codes
level
utterance
in
concerned
with
the manner in which and the degree to
depend on the
to a previous
relation
level
to
assigned
general
function
aspects
carried
actually
level
utterance,
interactive
more specific
3 are
of
an
4 codes
of
are
adjoining
utterances.
5 codes
Level
They record
utterances
how particular
than
other
conversation
design
in
larger
the
behaviours
the
preceding
and the train
In deciding
included
describe
present
a coding
system
numerous
elements
limitations
of
the
of
coding
that
the
process
of
the conversation.
are
The overall
system,
can be perceived
this
conversation
classroom
14
that
the
level.
should
wanted
between
she wanted
observation
of
at this
levels
investigator
a balance
achieve
to
related
structure
at each of the five
might
of
of
a speaker
one.
of thought
which'behaviours
the
context
be
to
the
to study
and the
and transcription,
the desire
between
classroom
The first
the nature
control
to
feature
to play
children's
participation
1971;
of
Rowe, 1974a;
the
of
behaviours
the
by the
exercised.
during
the
the way in
the
which
subject
matter
to
matter,
taking
the
matter
to a fuller
subject
studied
1976)
certain
aspects
by the
teacher
participation.
feature
in
her
how the
teacher
a level
of
various
deal
a great
this
of
to
to
These actions
(Other
some aspects
include
15
conveying
the
the
subject
the
of
have
investigators
and whose work
of
this
research.
focus was the actions

and extent
continuing
for
Keenan and Schieffelin,
conversation
the nature
a concern
or no knowledge
e. g.,
in
change
for
matter
subject
organizes
it.
feature,
was the control
the
little
chosen as a primary
response
such
of
Thus,
receives
reflects
plan
of
knowledge
direction
gave some preliminary
reveals
from
how topics
who studied
The third
child:
child
1981).
of
This
conversation.
teacher
the
the unfolding
over
of - the
course
found
1975,1978;
Mishler,
to be important
considered
teacher
have
system.
coding
The second feature
the
researchers
and extent
teachers
of
this
and have
and Berninger,
over
through
expressed
the nature
1964,1966;
Garvey
soliciting
in
attention
in
role
(Taba,
Much of
teachers
of
was
1978).
the teacher
(Numerous other
behaviours
an important
behaviours
process
as being
teachers.
on questioning
(Perman,
participation.
child's
focus
the
have been theorized
that
exercised
investigator
behaviour-of
focused
aspects
teaching-learning
of, the
balance,
this
features
was the control
seen by'this
questioning
Barnes,
the
and extent
is
order
and manageable
a compact
to achieve
interrelated
closely
important
as being
to develop
the
of
aspects
numerous
comprehensively
need
In
researchers.
on three
placed
also
and the
process
for
tool
to describe
of
with
taken
the child's
her own train
of
thought
the
although
the
acknowledging
train
These actions
the
content
repair
of
(1980)
and Brophy
aspects
These
and for
(1981)
features
three
our
thought.
of
they
First,
which
he can use to evaluate
the
Second,
they
participation.
the
and degree
type
by the
taken
teacher
include
for
to stop
or
The works
that
studies
earlier
control
of
might
forward,
introduced.
already
are
own
serve
to move the conversation

of
her
of
Prorok
certain
addressed
feature.
this
for
implications
train
thought;
of
on with
going
child's
or alter
language
train
two functions.
of his
Such actions
deciding
of
the child,
to
used.
she previously
a teacher's
teacher
to continue
teacher
the
to
and correctness
appropriateness
and then
contribution
by the
feedback
a different
initiated
and deferring
taken
can provide
allow
child's
thought;
of
has
child
were
understanding
the
of
understanding
our
to have great
considered
some aspects
of
practical
teaching-learning
of
discourse
process
processes,
including:
how language functions
specifically,
both structural
b)
the
and functional
exchange,
the verbal
message
teaching-learning
their
of
relationship
communicative
of
of language
functions
a) the potential
the verbal
or undermines
established
communicative
interaction,
including
the
in contiguous
teaching
to other
which
the
aspects
of
the
and form
content
goals
other
of
the
process;
of the rules
d)
about
message
c) the nature
each participant
for
of communication;
as the way in
supports
and, more
as a vehicle
aspects
such
in communication
affects
relationship
utterances)'to
the
of
other's
local
global
by each participant
of
an understanding
for
how
participation;
messages
(i. e.,
aspects
messages (i. e.,

16
communicated
aspects
larger
communicated through
context.
conversational
INTRODUCTION TO TUE DESIGN
1.3
The present
dimensions
data
the
upon which
"individual
as
in
schools
for
chosen
the
in
account
terms
of
For
the
game in which
is
into
himself
moves that
pedagogical
"sharing
or
is
given
was
and a child.
to
teachers
A
be discussed.
could
study
time"
poster
picture
flexibility
great
known
a setting
a teacher
matter
the
of
the
coding
the game.
coding
in
two.
chapter
The utterances
While
(1966,
3)
the means of
has been adopted
here.
the moves of
used
in
of
The move was chosen
p.
this
the
speakers
as the unit
dividing
the
further
each participant.
coding
of
view of conversation
to Wittgenstein,
Bellack
the present
17
was seen as a
conversation
scheme.
al.
et
to
system,
players.
who introduced
functions
pedagogical-functions
how subject
are
by Bellack
attributed
Bellack
of
used in this
discourse
offered
The
INTRODUCTION TO THE CODING SYSTEM
speakers
as the moves of
serve
between
it
the design
purposes
in
A large
children.
various
and children.
conversation"
conversations
of
1.4
of
"individual
or
because
was chosen
and children
detailed
system
teachers
based were collected
is
hearing-impaired
use in
The poster
interactions
speech"
for
to describe
system was developed
coding
the verbal
of
a broader
sequences and within
system
it
was
conversations
assigned
The
reflect
Bellack's
categories:
and
reacting,
responding,
soliciting,
structuring.
included
The details
details.
For all
by a number of categories
further
Each move is described
called
are:
moves:
Pausing
Turntaking
For solicitations:
Type of response prescribed
Language solicited
level
Cognitive
solicited
function
Conversational
Link
For
responses:
level
Language
level
Cognitive
Correctness
Link
For
reactions:
Language level
level
Cognitive
function
Rating
Conversational
Link
Structuring
moves rarely
They are more prevalent

dyadic
each
behaviours
useful
of
to
within
list
interaction
are
study.
the
without
as such,
noted
in
than
as to
its
(see
section
called
detail
a particular
details
1.2
into
is divided
according
above)
18
in
turn
are
The individual
details.
are
called
turns
These
function.
pedagogical
by categories
the various
each category,
within
classified
by codes.
the conversation
labeled
described
further
this
setting
classroom
were merely
which
represented
To summarize,
moves,
they
behaviours
The various
are
larger
the
for
data
the
description.
detailed
or detail,
in
in
appeared
Therefore,
setting.
further
function
represented
to
to which
the
they
by codes.
particular
are
is
It
levels
assigned,
in
to illustrate
order
how the practical
to the five
are related
At level
At level
assigned
to
behaviours
level
two adjoining
utterances
communicative
exchange.
At le
vel
is
3,
This
coded.
At level
4 are
which
functions
details
for
details
because
they
with
regard
of
the
level
4 reflect
of
the
conversation.
the
general
the
one.
and the
which
carried
actually
level
cognitive
The details
the move on the
specific
the
of
of
level
the
and correctness
reaction.
to
Level
out.
For responses,
are
degree
language
prescribed,
response
details
of
utterance
the
coded
content
at
and
moves.
5, the details
describe
They record
how particular
to moves other
than
include
conversational
function
the
3 are
of
related
describes
in
solicited.
dependence
adjoining
At level
the
the
of
the
of
each speaker's
consideration
response
of
function
and rating
reaction,
of
are
between
relationship
move and the preceding
level
level
the
the mechanics
the manner
at
For reactions,
response.
in
are:
cognitive
to
current
described
assigned
describe
details
These
coded.
are
function
done primarily
and cognitive
are
language
and turntaking
solicitations
solicited,
or utterances.
pedagogical
and language
content
level
the
is
because they can be coded without
level
2, pausing
this
in
of the utterance.
structure
or syntactical
to this
to surrounding
regard
framework (seed(49. p. lQ4).

)
conceptual
These code the language usage of the speaker
terms of the grammatical

They are assigned
system
of language of response and language of
1, the details
are coded.
reaction
of its
levels
of the coding
workings
relationship
the
of
the larger
preceding
and link.
a current
19
context
behaviours
one.
of
The level
Conversational
of the
a speaker
are
5 details
function
move to some previous
in
move
D
bb

a)
OA 1
0
+3
4J
N
0
",1
G)
IL4
z
w
HA
w
0
+-3
aC
Cd
L)
En
0
W
P4
E-4
P4
U2
rm
4-4
>
M
z C
4J
t9
4-2
''
C,
ti
(D
U)
P.
HO
W va
o
(D
up
0
:1
0
2:
(D
C,
oa
G)
+3
4-3
0)
"
'4
Q
0
O
U
U
C)
W
N
z
Cd
G
0
U)
0
4.4
0
H
.
m,
;
o o
0
v
r
U
z0
4-3
CD
I
CO
)
.
aH+
0m
Cd
a
z
w
oa
0
c
+- H
'Uv
4-3
cd
U)
04
,o
)
C,
vi
04 N
04
0
U
U
N
H >b
4-4 Co v
Oq
+) (D
MN
Q)
UQ
19a
e-1
terms of the current

describes
5 that
the context
of the conversation.
that
concerns
there
the greatest
exists
It
is for
the more
local
the
to
more
opposed
as
the lower
characterize
linked.
degree of dependence on
Here the concern
of the conversation,
aspects
move is
move to which the current
the specific
is at level
global
and/or
move's content
The link
language.
levels.
RELATIONSHIP OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH
1.5
TO PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Two purposes
of
upon and integrate

(2)
and
part
of
present
coding
RELATIONSHIP
recent
for
system
In
and children.
of
and that
system
to expand
systems from earlier
but
research
verbal
the
section,
earlier
(1)
were:
behaviours
of
studying
following
the
system
of coding
categories
as a result
a coding
coding
present
categories
incorporate
to
developed
the
have
that
have never
interactions
research,
been
is
teachers
of
between
relationships
research
as
appeared
discussed.
TO PREVIOUS CODING SYSTEMS
Taba et al.
The work of Taba, Elzey,
coding
scheme to study
asignificant
influence
purpose was to apply

development
thinking
certain
system she used was only
theoretical
a secondary
school
children,
system.
concepts
a
had
Taba's
main
about cognitive
of the coding
aim of her study.
system was the primary

20
i
01
coding
who developed
The development
teaching.
of the current
(1964),
in elementary
upon the current
to classroom
the development
and Levine
In contrast,
task of this
the
investigator.
The following
differences
between
(1)
The current
functioning.
cognitive
Taba's
any direct
without
Taba's
related
places
behaviours
interrelated'
(2)
the
Taba deals
current
additional
of
may influence
nonetheless
3,
chapter
(3)
the
of
context
according
current
to
(4)
assigned
Taba's
in
coding
greatly
5 behaviours
this
in
system
of
series
are
coded at
level
solicited
However,
her
at
system;
(This
tasks.
is
there
level
and
many
are
level
4 in
these
variables
the
further
discussed
framework
the
for
coding
study
each different
system
to
(level
does not
levels
to code
describes
type
of
include
one and two.
system
coding
larger
the
5 considerations,
the present
of
capacity
function
conversational
each move within
of
interaction
expands
on the current
work
function
the
teacher-child
of
that
as occurring
Taba's
of
the conceptual
system
the category
of
a whole
of
and reactions.
cognitive
influence
the area
interaction
3.4. )
section
A major
While
study.
included
not
to
categories
the current
a part
conceptualized
are
of
patterns
such as cognitive
system,
(similar
development.
behaviours
certain
responses
that
system
was in
with
variables
present
as but
in need of
coding
level
cognitive
level
functioning
cognitive
to
some
many additional
functioning,
to cognitive
specifically
but
than Taba's
related
development
investigating
to
scope
includes
system
to cognitive
relationship
was limited
study
the current
as detailed),
not
its
variables
specific
to cognitive
related
though
system,
to study
Thus,
directly
categories
in
system
in
much broader
is
and
of Taba et al.:
and that
system
current
was designed
which
system,
in
the
the main similarities
summarizes
research).
these
a broad
pedagogical
those
The
functions:
range
of
move.
behaviours
The parameters
of
21
Taba's
behaviour,
for
did
study
not
language
behaviour
in
development
tracing
work had a particularly

the
so that
functions
pedagogical
Taba's
being
during
thought
the level
In
and direction
summary,
describing
limited
the
analysed
in
made important
in
all
the
with
current
terms
of
coding
of
behaviours
the
system
system.
the
includes
(although
22
not,
for
these
be
to
whole
on the
Taba
Thus,
of behaviour.
of
were
reflects
as an organic
development
research.
It
of
used upon
categories
teachers
levels
of
strategies
1964, p. 124).
She did
flow
the
the changes in levels
and patterns
at
sequences
functions).
the
of
charting
(Taba,
moves of
to
of
of
system
sequences
occurring
The current
effect
in the classroom
contributions
coding
to
the characteristic
and children,
of cognitive
of behaviour
describe
system
coding
capable
considering
and the
functions
to descriptions
conception
are
of thought
Taba's
that
one share
that
while
discussion,
and codes
between moves of differing
present
between teachers
transactions
on the
only.
solicitations
systems
discussions
her
influence
be shown.
could
multidimensional
classroom
strong
relationships
scheme and the
considering
functioning.
she restricted
between
relationships
recommendations
the need for
the details
of
work
However,
was constructed
of
current
in her
although
to cognitive
relation
as language
such variables
she does acknowledge

in
thought.
of
to consider
and turntaking,
research
(5) Taba's
train
permit
pausing,
further
her
level
5 behaviours
other
hand,
one and two of
the
deal
present
at
Bellack
et
al.
The coding
the
study
it
such,
coding
of
between
into
to
corresponding
basic
the present
as such and are
noted
that
in
(2)
For Bellack,
the
teacher
(Bellack,
1966,
been modified
various
Therefore,
smallest
defined'by
it
that
the various
Thus,
constitute
a single
strategies
the
to
current
fit
current
there
has
will
of
playing
functions
four
detail
Bellack
system,
as the
the
only
maneuvers
(classroom)
a move is
research,
that
game"
roughly
has
definition
in
was interested
studying
use in conversation.
a move to be generally
the
function
(as
6 for
but
each pedagogical
single
that
speaker
occasion.
23
verbal
then,
be occasional
of
coded
moves are
the
a conversational
move for
the needs
the
teacher
are
These
"basic
and children
to consider
codes
(these
structuring
investigator
that
that
of
further.
present
teachers
flow
the
functions:
system).
although
and
dividing
for
recognized
pedagogical
make in
the
to coding
or reacting
described
This
manoeuvre
A
'k
function).
moves in
In
was useful
verbal
four
For Bellack,
somewhat.
strategies
the
pupil
238).
to a turn.
equivalent
Bellack
process.
one.
the basis
provided
As
similarities
present
an approach
to permit
the current
of
the
moves were considered
and the
p.
and the
system,
not
teaching
the
system
work
3 of
in
development
responding,
level
was designed
highlight
one of
soliciting,
(1966)
points
or moves.
moves can
serve
structuring,
are
turns,
al.
the
work. provided
Bellack's
conversation,
and child
Bellack's
Where Taba's
conversation
in
The following
system.
et
language
of
influential
was quite
(1)
of
functioning
the
differences
the
system
Bellack
turns
that
would
are coded as two or more
adjusts
and readjusts
his
"
(3)
Bellack's
coding
The present
solicitations.
detail.
great
However
recognition
kinds
various
of
control
range of detailed
importance
However,
1983).
moves need
expands
in
lengths
Although
in
to
range
Bellack
recorded
(level
utterances
1).
the mechanics
2 of
speakers
the
assigned
regard
to
development
of
as a result
level
those
(6) Bellack's
system.
he designate
2 factors
Bellack
that
might
and the
language of the
it,
the
namely,
of
categories
pedagogical
also
speakers
the
dealing
described
interchange,
for
present
detail,
and correctness
Thus,
child
moves.
has considered
of
the
of his
utterances
and
the various
moves in
children's
the communicative
current
are
did
Satterly,
also
he did not consider
Neither
of
Gutfreund,
the
of
as a result
teacher
composition
of
participation
Consequently,
researcher
and syntactical
takes
moves but
for
process.
on the part
a child's
Barnes,
treating
codes
of
the
of
described.
the way this
grammatical
tremendous
teaching
teacher
of these utterances,
speakers
the
in
acknowledgment
1980;
only
addition
the
greatly
(5)
not
to be carefully
system,
coding
a broad
coding
of
an adult
(Good,
Thus,
Thus,
for
a recognition
and extent
actions
participation
Wells,
without
nature
the
affects
child's
level
the
the
the conversation.
moves provide
behaviours
an increasing
that
materially
reflects
teacher's
is
there
researchers
with
system
the
of
moves in
reacting
over
reacting
in
solicitations
behaviours.
reacting
Bellack's
a teacher's
she exercises
teacher
investigator's
this
reflects
of
and codes for
the categories
(4)
also
importance
the
of
it
treats
also
system
coding
to
the most attention
gives
system
the
of
roles
functions
be important
at
at
to
level
3,
the
roles.
coding
system deals
24
primarily
with
behaviours
coded
at
levels
3 and 4 of
the
current
interrelationships
various
investigated.
certain
His
effects
(such
and its
a solicitation
as part
his
of
In
cycles.
of
subsequent
response),
with
the analysis
the expectation
he calls
the
importance
of
5 of
in
briefly,
moves that
level
move
conveyed
deals
He also
moves and patterns

in
of
of
patterns
various
to be
move on a succeeding
between
described
moves such as those
Brophy
pedagogical
he acknowledges
so,
between
relationships
instance,
allows
two levels
the
of
congruence
analysis,
doing
for
design
His
system.
aspects
permits,
a particular
degree
as the
between
system
of
coding
teaching
studying
and combinations
the current
of
system.
and Good
Brophy
and Good (1970)
differential
behaviours
by which
their
high
have
between
for
them.
their
work
their
in
teachers
of
and low achievers
teachers
difference
developed
coding
to understand
order
may be influenced
The main
and the
to describe
system
points
current
the
process
by expectations
of
similarity
coding
and
system
noted
are
here:
(1) Most of the behaviours

be classified
because
of
at
particular,
focused
great
response-teacher
child
reactions
local
sequence
levels
cited
only
the
above.
1 and 2 were not
of
teacher
expectations
the
(reactions)
5 concerns
Behaviours
coded
system.
to
unsolicited
level
current
aspects
was given
other
in
the
Teacher
and
covered,
nor
particular
the current
and Good.
In
solicitation-
was not
than
on
levels.
these
sequence.
assigned
25
of
teacher
content
by Brophy
However,
the
effect
on certain
feedback
containing
or global
and 5 of
in
attention
child
were
3,4,
interest
their
they
children,
levels
coded in Brophy and Good's system can
system
to
(2)
Brophy
classroom
and Good's
The current
setting.
and transcripts,
recordings
behaviours
specific
for
especially
(3)
for
child
Brophy
Coulthard
and Sinclair
and Good represent
teaching-learning
in
interested
studying
in order
children
discourse.
was analysis
of
discourse
learning
the
process,
the following
such as language,
into
(2) Coulthard
the
teachers
study
their
of
the
of
structure
research
teachingtheir
with
were
and
of grammatical
coincides
research
interested
are, described
an item
which
work
in
the
the
any of
studied
sequences
level
5.
depends
system
of
For
on the
also
(1975,
instance
linguistic
discussed
systems
behaviours
p. 4).
that
they
that
at
classified
the
stated
items
previously.
In addition,
in
coded
had not
These behaviours
behaviours
26
behaviours
and turntaking,
coding
in
interest
their
reveal
system.
present
and the
and Sinclair
worked
pausing,
the current
in
at
they
and Sinclair
3 and 4 of
of
in
1 and 2 of
been incorporated
value
the
and
al.,
and Sinclair
the objective
asked by Coulthard
categories
were
the function
than
et
ways:
framework
levels
between
rather
linguistic
levels
interactions
Although
with
to understand
Coulthard
current
(1) The questions
at
by educators
to investigate
in
system,
system.
Bellack
The linguists
verbal
and position
their
of the current
by Taba et al.,
attempts
process.
tape
and more
dealing
categories,
other
developed
systems
and reactions.
which. were not a focus
processes,
does
move than
each pedagogical
live
the
to be used with
range of details
codes a wider
and Good included
The coding
designed
system,
responses
classroom
Brophy
system
in
to be used
was designed
current
that
they
system
the discourse
have preceded
it,
Like
the
items
the
Taba and the
coding
current
and Sinclair
by Coulthard
discussed
to deal
attempted
also
This
"unfolding"
as the
system
they
discourse.
of
nature
actually
and what
researcher,
present
evolutionary
it,
follow
to
expected
the
with
in
to
referred
aspect,
subject
matter,
"now-coding"
the
as
aspect
of
it.
does follow
the
is
of
speech.
(3)
and Sinclair
Coulthard
between
linguistic
and social
behaviour.
between
linguistic
and social
behaviour
when something
they
to various
refer
to study
Coulthard
from
the
would
are
to choose
and
shared
not
teachers
and their
was designed
it
Therefore,
codes
not found in the dyadic
definition
their
settings
that
provide
that
setting
for
use with
for
of
a range
of the
setting
of
than is
(6)
Although
the case in Coulthard

there
of
are
significant
system
the
field
and the
of
a somewhat
)
et al.
Bellack
to smaller
of
pieces
and Sinclair.
of
areas
current
discourse
27
1.5,
section
functions
of
utilizes
research
above,
conversational
and Sinclair's
a product
This
system.
framework
Bellack's
utilize
(see
a move
at times assigns
is
be fruitful
Conversational
141).
system
setting.
and Sinclair
moves in
language
work
p.
discourse
fact,
In
113).
p.
it
that
investigator
and Sinclair's
classroom
Coulthard
pedagogical
Coulthard
(1975,
apparent
study.
(5)
that
this
behaviours
instructional
modified
of
children
led
may become especially
suggest
rules
out
link
the
that
research.
current
current
that
(1975,
granted
which
situation,
(4)
data
for
They point
interaction
the
the
where
hearing-impaired
involving
the
in
studies
situations
be taken
cannot
very
goes wrong
of
aware
were also
interdependence
the
overlap
system,
analysis.
between
the
former
As such
it
is
highly
in
technical
therefore,
terminology
readily
and application.
to most researchers
accessible
is
It
not,
of the field
outside
of linguistics.
Wells
Wells
developed
interactions
verbal
in
conducted
is
it
also
to
relation
(1)
a coding
of adults
the homes of
the
present
Among other
that
functions
according
tational,
social,
conversational
his
in
schools,
scheme in
coding
work.
utterances
to
their
which
represenlarger
the
procedural--within
they
these
expressive,
purpose--control,
of
pragmatic
tie classified
perform.
tutorial,
sequences
in
was interested
Wells
things,
individual
functions
of
the
study was
that
rather
children
some aspects
to describe
order
While Wells'
and children.
pre-school
to review
worthwhile
scheme in
(Wells,
were a part
1976,
7).
p.
The present
(or parts
utterances
descriptive
are
moves;
the
coding
they
initial
were
of the relationship
attempt
stages
of
to reflect
the data,
work
with
part
of the analysis
judgments
closely
to other
Thus,
moves.
was decided
the
present
at
that
coding
relationship
A certain
amount
scheme,
However,
ascribing
categories
much
should
content
of
interpretation
and/or
be
process
as few
that
Codes were devised
of
28
In
after
functions
not of the codin
stage.
language of
functions.
was made to require
attempt
the
coding
to
assigned
and/or
larger
function.
of the coded data,
a deliberate
as possible
describe
it
the
larger
these
the functions
of the content
to code any other,
developing
functions
conversational
However,
of utterances).
do not
devised
itself.
scheme ascribes
language
of
inferring
and
moves
of
is
meaning
have otherwise
would
(2)
but
unavoidable,
While
been
Wells
it
the
system
doing
benefited
might
from
as being
types
used clause
scheme did not consider
than
amount
required.
in his
meaning of the utterances
global
to be a lesser
was thought
data,
the
of
expressive
the present
coding
The language codes in the current
this.
further
study
of Wells'
by Wells
in his
language
categories.
Many of the issues

importance
of
to
Wells'
important
because
study,
features.
number of
Dore
the
its
of
greater
of
focused
focused
study
on three
communicative
interaction.
focused
larger
much
a
on
breadth,
The investigation
(1979)
educational
to
respect
the
in
of measure
Dore
current
their
defined
are
which
have a topic
to
similar
current
work
features
three
the
than
of
larger
in Well's
devised
a scheme for
coding
Certain
similarities
and differences
this
study.
used conversational
much as the
conversational
as a series
concept
system
domain"
ofsegments
and which
are
in
must occur
utterances
"illocutionary
and an
the
with
which
designated
as the unit
acts
investigator
present
acts
of
conversation
be noted:
should
colleagues
work,
that
stipulates
also
setting.
(1) Dore and his
the
to understanding
are of
research
et al.
Dore et al.
in
The present
be more sharply
may perhaps
study
investigator.
this
features
the
discussed
across
(1979,
p.
moves.
sequences,
turns
speaking
that
These are
344).
discussed
are
uses
in
relation
by conversational
to
function
and link.
(2)
of
the
Dore mentions
interactions,
that
the
turntaking
topics
of
may be influenced
conversation,
29
by the
and the kind
of
task
M.
fir
.,,
,,
"
: ,.
,.
conversatonal
not
pausing
One of
the
the
result,
in his
unlike
turntaking
of Dore's
tasks
of
work
holds
he does
system,
his
scheme.
was to
identify
functions
behaviours
child
in
all
at
the illocutionary
coding
Dore's
While
work.
has proceeded
work
to
how
As a
of utterances.
the greatest
prominence
in his
coding
for
categories
the
system,
between
the
Like
this
to
press)
cannot be said
interaction
of
the
in
the
current
to distinguish
and to expand
the
functions.
pedagogical
(1982)
deaf
children
between
the
and
present
the
influenced
work have proceeded
and
have been in
research
of
and Wood
current
coding
system
by Wood's system,
along
the same lines
but
in
ways:
One of
development
the
some of
Wood and Howarth et al.
to have been directly
important
(1)
each of
The development
work and the current
certain
work
simultaneously.
progress
these
with
as supplying
similar
useful
moves,
deals
particularly
While
are
it
conversations
study
Their
teachers.
is
remarks.
found
coding
al.
investigator,
chose
system
he defines
which
moves and reacting
et
This
Dore.
responsiveness
of
describe
this
system,
from
investigator
best
Wood and Howarth
their
coding
present
that
this
his
formulating
in
or acknowledging
responding
categories
of
responsiveness,
of
information
solicited
those
as the current
same time
the
at
considerations
differently
categories
certain
Dore's
some of
were similar
system
his
the current
system.
(4)
(in
But
or
main
understand
children
case
act
code either
(3)
involved.
the
deaf
with
original
hypotheses
children
is
others.
affected
More specifically,
30
of Wood's
work
by the quality
was that
of
the
their
he is concerned with
the
impact
of pre-lingual
llowarth,
Griffiths,
Wood's
shares
for
the
(2)
Wood's
child's
coding
and content
functions
of
the current
"levels
of
teacher's
the
interested
in
of
is,
level
of
control
at
(3)
concept
of
levels
The coding
of
specifies
prescribed
cognitive
the
system
4 and 5 of
system
soliciting
by the
level
the
the
functions
moves in
developed
than
moves not
solicitation
prescribed.
but
also
depending
Also
of
in
turns
the conversation.
behaviour,
investigator
notion
only
the
The codes
31
of
coded
system.
by this
Wood's
"levels
of
move.
used by Wood represent

the current
the
vary
might
teacher
of
coded
move in
preceding
and succeeding
broader
control
for
the
in
in
Wood is
coded as part
children
of
responses
the
research
them out.
types
of
system;
also
The current
on the next
question
him.
he developed
analysis,
carry
effect
exercised
preceding
categories
primarily
does not
to Wood are
the
to
how the
of
purposes
the current
by Wood are
described
power ratio.
the various
interest
These
the
such analyses
control"--that
relation
For
in
deaf
the
of
the category
to
similar
solicitations
turns
but
conversation
special
for
coded
is
exposed.
demands made of
linguistic
control"
of
the nature
not
the
he is
to which
in
interested
such as a teacher
particularly
on the
of
different
the
system.
measures,
the
to
of
for
but
speech,
language
the
has implications
deafness
reception
investigator
This
307).
p.
the
of
(Wood, Wood,
children
of
presence
abnormal
prescribed
proposes
the
Wood was particularly
response
It
that
responses
child's
1982,
behaviour
of
patterns
these
with
and Ilowarth,
view
nature
abnormal
upon the
who interact
people
non-deaf
only
deafness
of
the
levels
type
language
for
of
embodies
of
control.
responses
and
prescribed
each of
these
has
implications
child's
While
responses
Wood and his
expanded
greatly
the
set
of
developed
system
by this
to describe
categories
for
categories
the
has a
investigator
and reactions
responses
children.
to
the kinds
in his
coding
relation
emphasize
to
comparable
the
(6)
of
Indeed,
moves.
mechanics
like
system,
the
examining
of turns,
he does not
ask,
of
especially
communication
in
the
were
incorporated
into
of
Wood, affords
the
the
system
being
still
fully
(7) Wood recognizes
colleagues
a way
his
them (in
the unfolding
is possible
of high
which
does not measure

and that
he and
the content
of the
over time,
"home in"
and children
coding
on
system,
a number of categories
of the content
to study how topics
32
their
questioning
In the current
into
up.
of
Wood's
of control
to describe
how adults
of these is incorporated
with
functions
scheme of analysis
press).
such a way
(Wood, in press)
have not made an attempt
interest
that
the pitfalls
are organized
so as to discover
conversation
and thus it
that
the
to address
attempts
charge'? "
how conversations
or describe
the latter
'in
vary
the ebb and flow
who avoid
moves in
teacher
of
teachers
which
present
teachers
characterizes
that
patterns
"How can we describe
question,
c,oaling
the mechanics
system
the ways in
as to uncover
topics
teachers
questions
way those
The current
opportunity
while
of
in mean length
scheme.
present
his
develop
did
colleagues
(5) While Wood is interested

in
of the
in the interaction.
children,
of
and the extent
the nature
understanding
participation
(4)
of
for
of the verbal
are initiated
interaction,
followed
and
RELATIONSHIP TO STUDIES OF PARTICULAR TEACHER-CHILD BEHAVIOURS

Rowe's
of
studies
pausing
In addition
to
has been considerable
part
of coding
the
on someone else
If
p.
the
teacher
to five
had been waiting
From careful
clear
teachers
and extent
Rowe's
work
pauses:
of
of
that
the
work,
the
seconds.
for
duration,
question
values
to
teachers
less
or
they
than
on ten
A few of these
the
the current
of
pauses
in
role
of
each in
coding
found
that
(silent
that
to teachers
the
conversation.
A
behaviours.
aspects
of
students
often
to or exceeding
equal
give
because the teacher

33
the
determining
when uninterrupted,
students
by
or verbal).
by pauses often
separated
was
and interruptions
these
of
it
study,
which coded three
and type
She postulated
responses
or to call
another
or asks
to learning.
an important
a basis
in bursts
will
when a student
one second
use of
participation
Rowe also
that
changed
data
the
pauses was established,
tend to talk
than fuller
of
the teacher
1.1).
played
provided
placement,
In her
(section
investigator
nature
for
the
an average
within
When Rowe trained
she reported
examination
and children
category
reacts
seconds.
instead
seconds
above
this
usually
a teacher
after
question,
found
She also
which seem important
variables
to
81).
0.9
of
to respond
to ask a different
previously,
were mentioned
three
time
an average
student
do not appear as
that
does not respond,
a student
(1974a,
makes a response,
wait
must begin
to rephrase,
to repeat,
three
behaviour
1974c) found in her work that

student
time of one second.
within
coding
a few
from
system
systems.
a question,
begin
on this
there
systems,
coding
previous
of teacher-child
Rowe (1974,1974b,
asks
of
influence
of aspects
studies
influence
the
phrases
usually
rather
intervenes
between these bursts.

in her view,
speaker,
the mapping
prevent
the
what
language,
interval
between
studies
concerning
not
individual
aspects
only
of
bursts
the
work
as wall.
influenced
of
allocation
on utterance
information
important
turntaking
which
and turn
(1978)
of Mishler
interrogative
behaviour
were
behaviour
questioning
produced
but
pausing,
investigator
current
is
which
Rowe's work on wait-times
work
the
which might
(Rowe, 1974a, p. 87)
collected.
Other
in
by another
into
and thought
experience
seems to be doing
students
to be behaviour
was considered
of
between bursts
Intrusion
the
Berninger
in
structure
Other
studies
thinking
of
child
the
(1981)
and Garvey
discourse,
of
on
and the
in
and function
sequences.
1.6
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

0
The potential
research
of the current
significance
applications
of context
system codes behaviours
permits
them to be viewed singly
for
of the context
within
or in various
framework
that
degrees of
manual was designed
It
was developed
to ease the coding
enough information
The
about each code to allow

34
'.
a conceptual
of the coding
provide
of the
of language and communication.
(2) The format

such tools.
areas.
awareness among researchers
in the study
present
consideration
future
can be seen in a number of different
(1) There is an increasing

importance
for
study
to be a model
process
coders
and to
to use the
system
a minimum of
with
code is
defined.
carefuly
by examples
and guidelines
any judgments
separate
described
from
possible,
the behaviour
function
(3) While
overall
described
behaviours
of
the coding
is
would
individual
behaviours
their
speech
impaired
cannot
and nursery
may be applicable
However,
teachers
the
perceived
in
for
to other
might
babies
present
and their
unintelligible
immature,
that
the
is
the
involving
settings
in
normal
rules
are
system
coding
the
is
and
children
of
study
A baby,
some respects
of
the
by other
and whose patterns

in
here
these
caregivers.
similar
because
of hearing-impaired
populations
be applicable
also
whose
of
to a hearing-
the communicative
process
granted.
Coulthard
interactions
schools
in
form,
the
that
described
or
settings
likely
described
settings
its
may be
framework,
settings
other
other
that
thought
in other
is
it
and children
its
In addition,
pupil-teacher
wherever
the actual
to which
in certain
teachers
is
conceptual
The extent
in
are
be taken
as its
instance,
may be largely
child
from
to
being
Thus,
it
of the study,
other
between
communication
separately
in
It
interactions
coded
behaviours
For
parents.
is
known.
not
of
and their
children
behaviours.
system
to be applicable
likely
the behaviours
of
those
be applicable
their
researchers.
accompanied
have been taken
of
as well
settings.
children
to
effect
in the design
behaviours
similar
the
are
system has not been used in situations
and format,
to other
other
Efforts
use.
codes
of
and
behaviour.
applicable
with
for
itself
the coding
design
majority
about
Each detail
and ambiguity.
The great
description
the
that
of
than that
confusion
could
and Sinclair
in
the
suggest
reception
shed light
35
on what
that
classes
the
studies
of
rules
junior
of
of
schools
discourse
are,
as well
The coding system presented

Changing
the
conversation
be two ways of
would
(4) The coding
in
behaviours
to
the
becoming
and listen
courses
has been
families,
(5)
that
that
out
happens.
this
Gutfreund,
of
at
language
The current
input
coding
in
is
own
young
children
the
such
aim of
open communication
could
teach
not
in
children.
(1983,
p.
82)
are
better
the
learner,
suggest
than
suited
account
others
they
although
how this
of
a means to begin
offers
of how
development
no clear
system
their
question
While
and Wells
development
there
the
courses
language
Satterly,
present
of
how to facilitate
general
Pro-
care.
use the
parents
why similar
"
concerning
viewing
1975).
as a
application
might
do address
(Gordon,
reason
facilitate
for
these
parents
is'no
to uncover
process.
(6) In the present

to'build
upon research
a variety
of
Courses
teach
language
to facilitating
them.
Study. )
the
of
and parents
for
coding
extent
practical
and parents
as a basis
and some of
features
certain
point
to
Barnes,
to what
Limitations
system
to children
there
how to
parents
coding
popular
talk
in
teachers
improving
behaviours'and
to
train
the
to stimulate
who are in their
the children
with
grammes designed
determining
of teachers
p. 113).
such study.
used
materials
system has an immediate
interactions
their
facilitate
(See below,
the consciousness
way to raise
the
or
may be generalizable.
system
are
here could
population
(1975,
and learned
as how they are established
of
variables
particular,
both
teachers
done on individual
disciplines.
than
codes
The coding
have been included

describing
and children
has attempted
system the investigator
coding
the
are
aspects
system
in
expanded
36
of
includes
function
so that
(a)
systems.
of
the
reacting
role
from
number
a greater
coding
earlier
pedagogical
conversation
of
In
for
the
teacher
as reactor
and active
(b)
and
described,
can be more fully

be described
the
for
the
coding
which
to foster
potential
linguists,
language
(7)
role
the
serves
of
coding
to create
and maintain
speakers;
the
(E.
develop
language),
tools
Specific
the
the
in
the
including:
coding,
language
of
role
with
conjunction
and affective
in
functions
kinds
relationships
between
who interact
on those
and the
role
with
handicap
the
of
the
skills;
how
these
and
of
of
study
dialogue
deafness
of
of
cognitive,
seem
the
of
development.
interest
and certain
Hjelmquist,
for
the
study
1982,
of
of human social
ways in which this
are discussed
the
are
37,
p.
in some detail
37
to
the
and affective
the need
out
between
respond
coding
cognitive
points
relationships
needs,
of
the
between
relationships
aspects
and the ways individuals
most fundamental
research
certain
language
development
of
has
of
communication.
the
communication;
Of more general
of
are
proposed
by psychologists,
to
raised
and analysis
individual;
on child
development
issues
linguistic,
effect
hearing-handicapped
(8)
in
functions
communicative
deafness
system
certain
of
coding
for
are
system
scientists
social
and link.
interrelationships
approach
as a vehicle
important
of
language
acquisition
the
and other
and how it
A number
the
an interdisciplinary
educators,
the use of
the
of
variety
a wide
Thus,
data
the
of
can
conversation
and moves surrounding

the
analyzing
process
function
utterances
understanding
behaviours.
in
conversational
of
Ways of
our
teaching-learning
thought
of
unintelligible
facilitate
might
Trains
coding
them have been developed.
the
can be
as solicitor,
as well
in
role
child's
understood.
through
Procedures
listener,
thought
disruption
to
and
in
communication.
system might
in chapter
5.
in
such
aid
the
1.7
Although
the
have as wide
of
the
coding
teachers
with
behaviours
While
are
necessary
of
the coding
This
done in
codes.
been developed
at
this
any time
is
intention
the
of
that
other
tested
or
settings
reliability
more extensive
reliability
of
if
the
the
every
data
case with
this
of
investigator
it
was felt
instance
other
many of
of
was developed
system
(for
describing
version
present
Furthermore,
by others
the
categories
various
upon which
additional
to gee if
the
of
studies
reliability
code of
detail
every
system would be improved by the addition
in
codes
was not
the data
in
system.
(3) The coding

additional
teachers
1.6).
section
the
in
were
described
are
situation
to apply
and codes,
to ensure
picture
both
of
has been conducted
was conducted
categories
behaviours
of
one-to-one
no test
(see
a study
most frequent
range
be generalized
might
populations
other
this
However,
system.
coding
(2)
in
conversing
and children
these
The full
A particular
and the conversations
conversation,
stimulate
and their
children
basis.
on a one-to-one
in
on data collected
hearing-impaired
involving
tape.
on audio
recorded
the
to
limitations
certain
here is based solely
presented
who participated
was used
poster
as to
such a manner
as possible,
application
setting
an educational
in
be noted.
must
(1) The tool
was designed
system
and general
research
OF THE STUDY
LIMITATIONS
the
details
to formulate
38
that
Bloom,
researchers
did
level.
cognitive
the coding
not
system
call
ample
for
and could
required
them.
the coding
because
any
categories
1956)
and codes.
of
It
be added
In
was fully
system
had
in
fact
the
such
it
a way that
could
to
between
specified
needs
in
this
had
mind
as a matter
the coding
remains
whether
the
case,
in
children
(section
above
(4)
system
for
tool
and
researchers
present
to analyse
behaviours
teaching-learning
however,
was
facilitate
such
of
the
system
that
coding
the
best
interactive
presents
of
children,
conclusions
as
any
to
adults
of
described
those
the
in
next
by
light
patterns
Neither
patterns
of
of
critical
obtaining
developed,
be
and
could
be established,
are
the
for
this
of
the
were
refinement
and
analysis
same
focus
numerical
evidence
the
which
behaviours
of
and
analysis
the
data,
the
of
gradual,
5 of
chapter
for
revealing
to
of
codes
accurately
behaviour
nor the categories

to be drawn are
of
codes
required
teacher
the
They
and
of the particular
of the research,
step
means
instrument
details
development
and
here,
presented
of the
gradually.
the
categories
understand
specific
of
permit
of teacher
the
patterns
construction
The
to
designed
was
research
Thus,
methodology.
directions
some initial
sensitive.
between
The
process
details
The
accomplished
underlying
is
system
evolved
data,
research.
development
is
such
analysis.
a continuous
that
the
ensured
this
interactions
verbal
and
combinations
to better
in order
of
represented
of
coding
process.
to
confined
to
result
currently
settings
determine
In
model.
a
such
is thought
stands
as
serve
can
as it
the
it
project,
to
research
analysing
certain
the
of
modify
1.6).
The
child
further
system
coding
be a useful
and
for
beginning
the
to
according
the investigator
codes
While
and
own data.
analysing
the
to
wish
who might
the
from
to
of
aspects
details
various
by their
of'the
contents
who might
others
a view
with
various
and
process,
communicative
a model
interaction
verbal
study
want
the relationships
as
serve
to
this
research
the
coding
system
relationships
those
of
for
required
such
the means
However,
presented.
data
from which
such categories
from
which
essence
39
of
such
relationships
this
coding
system.
might
Chapter
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
process,
communicative
in
Conversation
the
investigator
this
basis
on a one-to-one
occurring
in
for
the
purposes
and children
were
settings
studied.
then,
was viewed
of
communicative
exchange,
of
this
context,
type
as a specific
teachers
educational
teaching-learning
useful
particularly
between
conversations
in the
language
of
to examine some functions
In order
by
one
research.
RATIONALE FOR THE CHOICE OF POPULATION
The data from which the coding

in schools
collected
and their.
children
for
hearing-impaired
study
were
Hearing-impaired
children.
were chosen for
teachers
for
important
three
reasons:
(1)
It
had been suggested

for
recommendations
it
be worthwhile
would
be taken
not
could
felt
would
that
teachers
would
the preliminary
data
their
teacher
deafness
of
the
situations
deaf
do influence
1972,
where
and were not
recommendation
such a situation
investigator
granted
make the
rules
of
kind
of
and the
experience
of
the
the
dynamics
of
40
difficulties
the
by the
was thought
hearing-impaired
this
the
it
apparent.
children
situation,
This
and
becau;, c both
investigator
as a
imposed
communicative
that
discourse
shared
more readily
just
392-393)
of
necessarily
provide
that
their
pp.
rules
was made because
a population
suggested
in
researchers
(Philips,
research
to study
for
This
participants.
that
further
by other
by
processes
in teaching.
Involved
in conversation
as the participants
population,
to take for
being able
granted
and their
teachers
than those of the general
more pronounced and exaggerated
are often
without
of deaf children
Behaviours
attempt
to communicate
many of the accepted
of
rules
conversation.
(2) Hearing-impaired
communication
they are most often
schools,
ordinary
Though these skills
skills.
to the youngest
often
of language and
the development
to study
opportunity
unusual
teachers provide an
and their
children
incidently,
taught
and most
Where deaf children
in the school.
children
in
are sometimes taught
are
0
such skills
concerned,
to deafness
is said
The fact
they teach.
that
to look more closely
and
of the deaf can be
whereas others
in general
skills
aspect
(with
language
emphasize different
impairment
in their
teaching
of language
at the relationship
of language and communication
on
concentrate
in the deaf children
of these),
some teachers
of the consequences of hearing
development
teaching
of communication
being one particular
skills
careers
school
because the main handicap
some teachers
to emphasize language
the development
their
to be in the area of language and
Additionally,
communication.
observed
throughout
of them is more deliberate
the teaching
related
are taught
teaching
aspects
enables
us
to the
and how these influence
each
other.
(3) Deafness,
in addition
speech and language deficits,

cognitive
differences
communication
characteristics
study
(Gets,
(Ottem,
1953).
simultaneously,
the possible
interactions
to being a handicap
is often
also
associated
1980) and deviant

Deaf children
often
thus providing
between certain
41
associated
patterns
exhibit
with
with
various
of social
all
of these
a unique opportunity
aspects
of language
to
functioning
and cognitive
knowing
turns,
when a question
by responding
a conversation
describe
and Sinclair
categories
members of
in the instance
a lesson
linguistic
promote that
p. 13),
children
link,
is
being
in
of
Coulthard
as
objects
for
discussion.
making
They point
to speak and learning
thus,
behaviour.
in
classroom
the rules
learning
they describe,
take
and
).
etc.
classification
in
of
continuity
appropriate
with
to the classroom
and social
hearing-impaired
the
to
ability
providing
asked,
in an ordinary
and also
(1975,
the
previously,
in
behave are inseparable

between
has been said
a lesson
contributions
appropriate
being
and reacting
a teacher
giving
simultaneously
that
to what
content
relevant
is
aspects
and certain
(e. g.,
on the other
competence
communicative
one hand,
on the
the value
of
to establish
able
to
the link
emphasizing
Part
out
of
studying
what
features
and which ones do not.
THE POPULATION
Three pilot
two schools
schools
for
groups of chldren
hearing-impaired
were known to express
That is,
they considered
children
to be oral
of auditory
goal
an oral
This
Both
of deaf education.
philosophy
main vehicle
philosophy
from
were chosen
teachers
in Great Britain.
children
language and speech,
equipment.
the integration
their
and their
for
communicating
in conjunction
usually
of the hearing-impaired
with
has as its
child
into
with
the use
long-term
"hearing
a
"
world.
The children
In addition
classes
to a shared philosophy
(ages 4 to 5) in each school
42
of education,
shared certain
the
the reception
characteristics.
The receptive
language
of
Developmental
Language
Scales
the speech
addition,
to be equally
limited
at
Test
(Schonell,
1956),
1959),
Donaldson's
ratings,
was based
had similar
(ages
school
investigator
by the
and were
Silent
Reading
Linguistic
Series
(Montgomery,
Test
In addition,
to be largely
Picture
Peabody
Schonell's
was observed
lacking
and
following
the
on use of
evaluations.
8 to 16)
Receptive
1949,1955,1965),
and parental
speech
the
communication.
assessed
(Wechsler,
(Dunn,
Vocabulary
end of
verbal
were
Assessment
WISC-Verbal
children's
in
skills
to be poor.
teacher
was observed
by the older
attained
competencies
the upper
competency
language
measures:
two schools
the
In
similar.
greatly.
A children
School
found
was quite
in the two schools
children
the communicative
differed
expressive
1969)
in
children
by the Reynell
as measured
(Reynell,
these youngest
competencies,
achieved
the
of
children
unintelligible.
Although
children
these
1973),
the
in
intelligibility.
In
(ages
B, however,
school
8 to 16)
showed receptive
markedly
different
addition,
their
contrast
to
from
speech
that
of
The differences
reason for
choosing
of the verbal
schools
children
range of behaviours
The particular
the
upper
the
of
children
end of
language
and expressive
those
in
school
to be largely
was observed
the
school
skills
A.
In
in
intelligible
A children.
school
found in the children

It
those schools.
interaction
would ensure
at
was thought
between teachers
that
the coding
of teachers
children
of the two schools

that
and children
were the
an exploration
in both
system would reflect
the widest
and children.
who were members of the pilot

43
groups were
the help
with
selected
of the principals
This was done so that
competencies
of communicative
two schools
the
intelligence,
were
Three
pilot
were
studied.
had spent
their
school
of
their
school
third
group
skills
that
in
school
the
from
of
their
were used to test

transfer
careers
into
the
to
similar
investigator
were associated
children
school
group children
were
with
tested
A and school
lay
largely
B,
The third
B during
school
in
the children
this
these
it
the
B,
school
to that
using
the
B children.
had come
children
was noted
that
found
investigator
this
those
Yet,
schools.
B.
were
group
to have communication
fact
in
although
into
who
children
second
at school
school
became, however gradually,
These
B children.
In
A.
school
school
by this
children
behaviour
in
by the principal
different
observation
"transfer"
group
Upon entry
A children,
and their
children
was made up of
remarkably
a number of
period
ages ranged from 8 to 16 years.
The first
were reported
were
The
eight
their
careers.
from
Children
factors.
and other
a range
loss,
of hearing
were ones who had transferred
children
group
to represent
each containing
careers
who had spent
be said
schools.
(ISO)
db
100
from
80
db
to
over
ranged
groups,
teachers,
children
status,
The children's
the range.
respective
in each school.
on the basis
paired
losses
hearing
could
existing
socio-economic
children's
across
the children
of their
over
longer
a two-year
these
the more similar
of the other
school
as
same measures
The results
between the results
for
for
school
B children.
and school
The teachers
It
children
was not only
the differences
in the two schools
that
in levels
of competence of the
seemed to set the schools

44
apart.
the
A
There
behaviours
that
be observed
could
A teachers
school
to be a difference
also
appeared
tended
to
pausing
Discussions
tended
to be primarily
to pause
more often
inferences
in
talk.
their
The teachers
the children's
A few
child.
these
cases
for
the
it WaScustomary
their
basis.
This
children
upper
in the stur 9y.
the
take
for
It
served
as the
Including
help
from
aside
in
familiar
the
be noted
should
of
role
special
more than one

in
schools
directly
the
the most part
research;
of each school,
to participate
and
phrases
taught
in
study.
them to be thoroughly
enabled
in the research
participated
this
of
them out of class
included
the
each of
School
and to use more
Some teachers
They would often
taking
children,
level.
factual
phrases,
speaking.
in the study were for
the principal
duties,
simple
after
to participate
purpose
for
administrative
of the children.
of
instance,
For
words,
speaking,
teachers.
principal
teacher
child's
that
the
after
declined
teachers
teacher
of
to use more elaborate
who participated
own class
single
on the
tended
sentences,
range
infrequently
only
hand,
other
the
each school.
using
sentences,
on the
at
talk
and simple
teachers,
in
the
education
"tutor"
to many
on a one-to-one
ten
principals,
the
of
all
with
people
as teachers.
THE SETTING
The data were collected

"individual
or
and deaf
typically
classroom.
" which
conversation,
children.
This
gives
an individual
a week to work
together
The children
in a setting
setting,
is
a typical
commonplace
teacher
more intensively
are
known as "individual
tutored
45
and child
than
by their
for
setting
in
the
teachers
two schools,
several
is
speech"
opportunities
possible
own teachers
in
the
either
in
room from the other
separate
last
depending
and from
to child
for
opportunity
kind
day to day.
a teacher
of
conferences,
time. "
in
exchange,
that
The individual
ordinary
lessons,
often
is
a nearly
time
and elementary
school
conversation
setting
the
in
are
Michaels
(1983,
schools
involved
classroom
individual
activities
sharing
child
more individually,
occurring
reading
discourse
and oral
in
from
affords
children.
and children
kind
of this
and vary
which
interact
to
for. hearing-impaired
teachers
pre-school
minutes
or
reading,
Sessions
child.
twenty
and child
collaborative
She states
to
area of the
talking,
Such a setting,
such as small-group
activities
event
a few minutes
described
pp. 77-78)
this
on the particular
to schools
unique
not
in
from
anywhere
used for
The time is usually
main classroom.
speech work,
or in a secluded
children
writing
known as "sharing
speech
universal
(p.
classrooms
79).
was chosen for
several
reasons:
(1) It
provided'an
conversations
while
collaborative
effort
the teacher
and child
than would otherwise
(2) The investigator

and length
to observe and record
opportunity
could
of the conversation
were engaged in a more

in school.
be possible
more easily
control
the subject
in other
than she could
matter
school
settings.
(3) Like
felt
it
that
understanding
in
the
on the
part
for
of
setting,
investigator
this
of
understanding
where
each participant
teaching-learning
the particular
p. 6),
a further
to pursue
a more circumscribed
(4) In the individual

goals
(1975,
and Sinclair
was worthwhile
in
conversation
roles
Coulthard
of
there
their
is
some
particular
process.
the teacher
setting,
child.
was free
to pursue her
0
46
(5) The setting
teacher
and child,
that
was one to which both participants
because the setting
the
of
to have been minimized
could be said
such effects
to all
on the interactions
had no effect
of the investigator
intervention
cannot be said
While it
in the study.
the participants
was familiar
here is one that
described
were
accustomed.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER

to highlight
In order
the
it
study,
was decided
would
be discussed
Thus,
differences
in
in
so that
children
employed.
the
of
their
To suit
photograph'of
subject
discussed
usual
this
purpose,
to discuss
presented
its
the picture
contents
poster
the
by these teachers
a large
not
could
subject
be
to
needed
both teachers
for
opportunities
(A
of levels.
on a variety
The
was used.
poster
picture
and
would be
of interaction
patterns
participants.
Although
matter.
that
matter
subject
described
being
in
and children
by all
setting
at the same time it
was chosen because it
and children
of
range
behaviours
the verbal
of the material
representative
the
the conversational
was to be limited,
matter
among teachers
to control
to be a function
be said
poster
differences
is found in Appendix C. )
COLLECTION OF THE DATA
Each teacher
about
This
the picture
enabled
would
have,
was instructed
if
it
first
had an opportunity
poster
teachers
had they
to
talk
with
a child
not
to become familiar
made preparations
to
had been an ordinary
the
child
47
in
participating
the
with
for
about
individual
to have a conversation
the
the
lesson
picture
lesson.
picture
with
the
study.
as they
Each teacher
he
would
as
the child.
The
have
between the teachers
dicussions
minutes
and forty
teacher
and a child
seconds,
Once the practice

three
for
auditory
or no auditory
aide,
in
to using
accustomed
the
recorded,
aids
the deaf,
at
such
researcher
listened
amplification,
their
depending
they
Once the audio

listener,
the
conversations
to
recorded
described
in
in
about
hearing
were
tapes
both
the
The children
tape.
on what
picture.
regular
and a second
to procedures
them according
on audio
sessions.
the
had a discussion
teacher
for
time
the children
each of
was recorded
all,
of
most aspects
respective
The discussion
used headphones
about
were complete,
and his
groups
pilot
the picture.
of
to converse
to three
to be sufficient
was found
which
sessions
were limited
and children
were
trained
teachers
and transcribed
4.
chapter
THE CODING SYSTEM

Once the
conversations
moves and pedagogical

introduction
to
establishing
moves,
the details
the
coding
assigning
evolved
The conversations
were written
guidelines
seemed to
the
reflect
coders
carried
out,
system
as outlined
The coding
as a result
of multiple
were coded
and revised
accurately
sensed
When the coding
functions,
and another
that
the variations
there
was a high
a formal
was complete,
in
(1)
listenings
teacher
of
system is described
in detail
48
to
the
and definitions
the
found
coding
in
the data,
degree
of
reliability.
test
of
reliability
in chapter
and
system
4.
chapter
for
all
and coding
trained
and recoded
until:
the
and guidelines
pedagogical
investigator
in
outlined
The definitions
manual.
into
were divided
they
to procedures
moves according
and codes
by this
tapes
deaf.
(2)
the
were
transcribed,
3.
and
was
Chapter
DESCRIPTION OF THE CODING SYSTEM
framework
The theoretical
1, consists
chapter
in
increase
level.
system
is
It
they
are
purpose
fashion.
This
coding
system
in Appendix
be helpful
The symbols
photograph
used
the
of
the
at
coding
by discussing
levels
the
examples
picture
poster
is
found
and guidelines
to which
that
reflect
are discussed.
concerns
coded for
of all
this
as codes for
guidelines
code, can be found in the coding
manual,
49
wherever
they
being
presented.
in Appendix
as the
B.
matter
subject
for
to be a comprehensive
system.
Only those codes,
the most important

In particular,
theoretithe codes
move" are not mentioned
the categories,
and the precise
and codes are
C.
of the coding
but are included
each category,
concepts
served
in Appendix
aspects
"not
and
Exact definitions
that
the
should not be considered
definitions,
tell"
are
details
be offered
will
explained
the
of all
cal and practical
Examples
in
the
of
the meanings of all
A.
presentation
to
according
an
coded
be accomplished
will
of
This discussion
discussion,
context
to describe
chapter
to an understanding
conversations
"can't
this
of
reflects
the behaviours
of
in
assigned.
summarized
the
level
on the
components
the
For ease of reference,
might
its
an interpretation
the
of
of
introduced
system,
Each higher
for
in a detailed
categories
all
levels.
the dependence
interaction
verbal
that
of five
of the coding
virtually
full
for
which
lists
in this
every detail.
for
the
codes
of
the application
is a separate
of each
volume.
BEHAVIOURS CODED WITHOUT REGARD
LEVEL 1-
3.1
TO SURROUNDINGMOVES
The smallest.
a single
speaker.
children
that
Level
one behaviour
of
a single
level.
The grammatical
example
of
of
parts
within
a level
speech
speaker
structure
their
behaviours
Thus,
context.
simplest
for
of
a move can be considered

in
the
of
can be coded
coding
the
system,
move are
to any larger
regard
without
only
an
speaker's
a given
or
this
at
elements
present
of
and
considered
elements
as they
teachers
of
is
Thus,
and syntactic
one utterance
to surrounding
regard
in
1 element.
level
coded at. this
behaviours
1 comprises
behaviours
is
a conversation
can be coded without
describes
It
moves.
component
context.
LANGUAGEBEHAVIOUR (Detail
Language behaviour
speech or syntactic
4)
as coded in level
structure
behaviour
guage
is coded for
intelligible
utterances
Coding
are:
verb phrase,
verb phrase,
compound or complex sentence,

interjections,
both teachers
etc.
would not expect
faulty
and other
not covered
Some of these categories
part
coded for
to be associated
faulty
sentence,
(lone
with
50
features
teachers
Lan-
and
noun phrase,
simple
adjectives,
by the preceding
describe
of
and children.
yes or no, noun, noun phrase,

faulty
"the
as
"
language
of the
of the speaker.
of language behaviour
The categories
children
1 is defined
verb,
sentence,
adverbs,
categories).
of language
that
the language of teachers.
one
for
but also
children
behaviours
by
teachers
usage
for
were selected
and certain
involving
The categories
of children.
in
of a
the possibility
suggested
between some of the faulty
relationship
that
teachers.
for
not only
of the occurrence
The frequency
usage by teachers
the data of faulty
verbal
faulty
describing
However, ' categories
usage were included
faulty
usage
were those most commonly found in the
coding
data.
should be noted
It
behaviour
of teacher
in section
fully
Coding
was decided
not to code the language
The reason for
3.4 below, Language Solicited.
is explained
this
'
utterances
In addition
' there
it
solicitations.
unintelligible
children,
that
to the codes listed
both teachers
above for
was a need to describe
children's
and
also
utterances
in
terms of'intelligibility.
'There
ligible
only
were large
because of their
taken for
that
and there
was important
in the data,
interested
this
where the rules
When a conversation
granted.
utterances
resolve
that
in conversation
situations
It
prevalence
the opportunity
exactly
cannot be deciphered,
this
dilemma was a matter
of great
(e. g.,
the assumptions
that
underlie
conversation
aRGE
51
r'
r,
ei
them not
to study
researcher:
of discourse
flow.
cannot be
a great
the conversation
and-children.
l7
to describe
many
is disrupted
How teachers
interest
to this
because the way in which the dilemma is resolved
much about
speaker's-role)
and unintel-
but because they provide
contains
is a breach in the conversational
investigator
reveal
in the data.
utterances
intelligible
numbers of partially
understanding
may
of each
between certain
teachers
The method for
coding
during
changes
of
number
language behaviour
At that
not
the development
intelligibility
Initially,
next
utterance
child's
by what
determined
Thus, intelligibility
the next
did
speaker
or not the coder could
understand
A series
were developed
of guidelines
Eventually,
this
discarded.
It
itself
that
was thought
was often
describe
behaviour
any-other-verbal
For the purposes

divided
into
speech,
(2)
and
those
Unintelligible
different
it
have the pattern
to be attempts
utterances
with
no intelligible
of-only
the longer
and purpose of intelligible
52
were
speech were of two

seemed most often
utterances
repetitions
utterances
it.
speech.
these short
at single-word
of
no intelligible
a few syllables
-Although
to
of
1, independent
some intelligible
with
vocalizing.
was moat, often
unintelligible
included
Utterances
to be non-purposeful
responses,
which
in the, same. manner as the rest
those utterances
utterances
types.
seemed at times
(1)
decided
may have preceded or followed
that
of coding,
two kinds:
the guidelines
in establishing
it. was coded at level
That is,
was
that
the investigator
Subsequently,.
behaviour
language behaviour.
the utterance.
utterances
even with
were difficulties
there
unintelligible
the coder in judging
unintelligible
In addition,
between coders.
reliability
to aid
to be too dependent on a context
not clear..
had been written,
itself.
the words of the utterance
to describing
approach
was
to whether
according
and not
or
the
of an utterance
seemed to have understood
the teacher
or not
whether
detail.
she had understood
that
move revealed
or not.
the other
with
in terms of whether
was described
system.
but was coded as a separate
of children,
the teacher's
of the coding
was not coded together
intelligibility
stage,
went through
utterances
unintelligible
that
or
seemed to
speech yet without
intelligible
Thus,
words.
two categories
utterances
of=three
utterances
of more than three
unintelligible
Other unintelligible
speech
along
the
with
have some general

much like
but
the
included
they
for
developed
of
(as
purpose
or
type
of
unintelligible
this
did
group
or syntactic
The language
codes
epeechare
as followst
than three
unintelligible
noun, unintelligible
unintelligible
syllables,
plus verb,
(incomplete
unintelligible
unintelligible
unintelligible
syllables
plus
the
in
codes
the number of
were coded
syllables
the
plus
including
part
as
of
faulty
unintelligible
complete
less,
or
more
plus
syllable(s)
noun phrase,
unintelligible
syllable(s)
plus
unintelligible
syllables
unintelligible
plus
syllables
Therefore,
above,
the utterances
noun phrase,
sentence),
described
differences
utterances
syllable(s)
to random vocalizing),
utterance
unintelligible
syllable(s)'plus
syllable(s):
phrases,
child
three
seemed to
was intelligible.
that
for
opposed
consider
Rather,
structure
These usually
language.
not
syllables.,
some intelligible
speech.
one or more unintelligible
comprising
phrase
unintelligible
and one to code
syllables.
contained
more intelligible
unintelligible
speech
unintelligible
intent
second
or less,
syllables
utterances
one to code
were created:
plus
syllables
faulty
sentence,
faulty
verb
plus verb
and
sentence.
0
1,1.1
1 ''1
11%
3.2 -LEVEL 2 --BEHAVIOURS CODEDIN CONSIDERATION

OF ADJOINING MOVES
"
While
utterances,
language behaviour
other
features
can be coded without
of, the communicative

53
regard
process
to other
emerge when
details
of two participants
utterances
adjoining
describe
the degree to which each speaker participates
in accordance
conversation
discourse.
Level
are considered.
Level
with
2, providing
of the accepted
certain
information
exchange with
in
rules
of
about some of the mechanics

. includes
to two utterances,
respect
both pausing and turntaking.
PAUSING BEHAVIOUR (Detail

Pauses are
the
first
defined
as await-time
communication
which
is
feature
is
that
exchange
communicative
1)
in
of
included
the
in
of
the coding
It
conversation.
boundaries
gives
the mechanics
the
system.
is
A pause
a feature
of
to utterances.
Rationale
It
that
some teachers
from other
used pauses in their
teachers.
Similarly,
(1)
important:
of time for
communicative
whom a given
exchange,
to their
identified
pause "belongs.
controls'whether
By its
it
speaker),
is
very nature,
(where teachers
own turns);
(3)
duration
and
pauses).
as an important
then,
feature
of the
to the problem of to
"
the other
a potential
in how various
location
much time was devoted
While one person seems to be doing

current
(2)
differently
were seen as being
of'pauses
which a speaker
When pauses were first
interchange
were differences
silent);
paused in'relation
and children
length
type (verbal'or
of the conversations
verbal
-there
Three features
used pauses.
children
(the
from the tape recordings
was apparent
the pausing
participant
pause actually
pausing
involves
54
(usually
the
in the conversation
who
becomes a pause or not.

two people:
one who starts
the pause to happen.
a pause, and one who allows

of the features
of the mechanics of the communicative
level
characterize
in determining
by convention"to
speaker.
most recent
were coded so that

who was pausing
is one
exchange that
2.
Given the ambiguity

decided
Thus, pausing
it
it-was
pause ownership,
code the pause along with
the turn
At the same time,
pauses of various
would be possible
to obtain
and to what
the
extent
of the
durations
some indication
of
to happen.
pause was allowed
Co-ding
Three independent
type,
location,
Type of
pause.
move:
Silent
Location
Two types
" or "uhm" fill
of
pauses
Verbal
In child
utterance.
completion
coding
point.
turn,
the other
hand,, -could clearly
beginning
of a turn.
Duration
of pause.
point
in
on the other
hand,
it
Three durations
the location
of a pause was at
developed
as discussed
to be at
were considered
above.
A verbal
be coded as being placed
pause, on
at the
of a pause is measured in
of pauses were coded:

55
to allow
of pauses.
of turns
The duration
with
completion
Codes were therefore
pauses at the beginning
the and of the previous
seconds.
whether
at the end, or
Pauses associated
utterances,
of a wide range of locations
-Silent
and verbal.
silent
pauses occur when words
to occur at a potential
could not always be determined

a'potential
codeds
the wait-time.
of an utterance.
seemed primarily
the teacher's
are
Pauses occur at the beginning,
of pause.
anywhere in the middle

teacher
each
and duration.
pauses are empty wait-times.
"well...
auch as.
for
of pausing are coded for
characteristics
less
than one second,
one second or longer
but less
than three
longer.
The category
included
because the work of Rowe (1974a,
children
are more likely
the data revealed-that

to describe
need existed
duration
within
this
included
in
coding
the
It
was as if
deaf
their
shorten
some of
pupils
their
frame.
of
to wait
seemed reluctant
very
because
long
for
them were very
could
or would
seconds or
coded because
less than three seconds.

longer
Such small
pauses
of
some teachers
anxious
respond,
and shorter
measures
so these
were
the
deaf
their
pupils.
likelihood
the
about
time
of
from
a response
teachers
that
tended
to
wait-times.
TURNTAKING BEHAVIOUR (Detail
The second feature

described
were also
pauses of relatively
time
was
three
wait
durations
most pauses last
seconds or
1974b, 1974c) showed that
when teachers
The two shorter
talking.
more after
seconds or longer
of pauses of three
to talk
and three
seconds,
in, the coding

.
as the placement
2)
of the mechanics of communicative
exchange
system is turntaking.
is defined
TurntakLng
in time with
of an utterance
to another
respect
utterance.
Rationale
The ability
to take turns
communicative
competence,
understanding
of their
in any given
characterized
that
signaling
social
is part
speakers
relationship
of overall
0
have an
and therefore
their
roles
conversation.
The collected
of teachers
in a conversation
data contained
and children.!
mainly
a wide range of turntaking
Some of the conversations
by the child
interrupting
56
behaviour
were
the teacher
or the
interrupting
teacher
or by both speakers
the child,
same time.
Other conversations,
alternating
exchange of the kind

including
but also
for
The codes
in
was taken
of
both
is
closely
transcript,
the coding
-so=the
development
be noted
are
Thus,
of
of
explanation
closely
in
manual,
interruption
the
pausing
in
this
for
to pausing,
of
turntaking
in
with
the development
that
some aspects
into
of
the verbal
not
both
interaction
how pausing
into
"Procedure
are
occurs
related
Determining
the coding
any
to
allowed
impact
on
to decisions
to
the
coding
"
Move Boundaries.
of turntaking
are also
such as how to code a move when a
how to code a move that
completed, -how to code false
of
A detailed
introduction
by another
speaker,
or was not
moves.
the
for
concerning
system,
in
2 detail.
have considerable
and turntaking
can be found
section
did
pausing
level
of
as the absence
of
a few more syllables
it
behaviours
utterances
the other
speaker goes on for
speech if
the
dividing
context
and turntaking
in the coding
with
effort
the coding
can be thought
that
Other difficulties
dealt
Great
the move boundaries
of
of rules
related
move' boundaries
about
as
adequately
addition,
assignment
also
and can indicate
the division
speaking
turntaking.
should
happen.
conversation,
many times.
to describe
In
to
For example, -an

pause,
codes
related
of
turntaking
with
and simultaneous
were' revised
and children.
the
as more of an
associated
needed to proceed simultaneously
often
moves
.
It
the
at the
conversation.
turntaking
devising
teachers
usually
some interrupting
might be found in ordinary
be described
could
talking
after
some interjected
is interrupted
speech
and never
and how to code interjected
starts,
more than once Within
57
another
speaker's
turn.
dingy
Co...
is coded for
Turntaking
any judgment regarding
each speaker and every utterance,
the appropriateness
in relation
of his utterance
aspects
of turntaking
standing
the verbal'
of the speaker's
to the other
speaker's
(1)'the
interactions
the move; (2)
the presence
speaker during
the course
nature
placement
in under-
of the beginning
or absence of speech interjected

of a move; and (3)
'Three
utterance.
important
were seen as particularly
without
the nature
of
by another
of the and of
the move.,
A number of turntaking
having
without
speaker
another
are
interrupted
in
not
completion
a potential
indication
that
of a trespass
potential
talk
while
of completion
a previous
Lap he and
That
same "apace"
in
the
speaker's
ending if
move.
is no
there
on account
move prematurely
at a
of his move.
if
a trespass
speaker
the speaker
The speaker stops
speech.
is still
who trespassed
the second speaker,
his
terminated
if
his move at what seems to be
to have a normal
the speaker
A move is considered
the
of the previous
or simultaneous
point
for
beginning
speaker.
speaker begins
point
another
conflict
The current
conversation.
were coded:
to have a normal
`A move`La considered
begins
behaviours
a second speaker begins

speaking.
This
to
is coded for
upon the move of the earlier
speaker.
prematurely
the first
ends his
speaker,
A trespass
first
speaker's
to have been interrupted
move on, account
of a trespass.
whose move was-trespassed
that
does not result
move is considered
a speaker
This
is coded for
upon.
in premature
to be interjected
58
if
termination
of the
speech with
to the first
regard
his move despite
speaker's
a trespass,
have been interjected
into
That is,
move.
coded in, the move of the first
Interjected
move.
into
speaker,
a speaker continues
speech is considered
the trespasser's
the first
if
to
speech is
whose move the speech was
interjected.
A>move is. considered
trespasser
first
speaker
speakers
ends his
the
speaker
ends his
prematurely
3.3
trespassing
talking
continues
move,
(2)
or,
move prematurely,
because
apparently
one of
apparently
(1) a
two simultaneous
because
the
other
talking.
continues
Simultaneous
if:
to have been discontinued
moves are
begin
two moves which
simultaneously.
LEVEL3 - ASSIGNING PEDAGOGICALFUNCTIONS

TO MOVES
In describing
levels
1 and 2, we have looked at certain
of the conversation
but have regarded
function
serve.
they might
However, once the verbal

divided-into
turn
serves
pedagogical
is
in the context
teaching-learning
process,
functions..
to each turn
each serving
interaction
then possible
the functions
Level
3 assigns
a pedagogical
to describe
from any
has been
the function
each
In the case of the
served may be said

pedagogical
participants.
as a pedagogical
in isolation
of the participants
of the interaction.
of the conversational
utterances
referred
it
turns,
them only
features
to be
functions
Bellack
to the
et al.,
move and designated
four
(1966)
types,
function.
59
STRUCTURING
Structuring
for
context
interaction
excluding
frequently
teachers
Which they focus

during
behaviour
subsequent
that
a class
(Bellack
session.
period
with
the
setting
haltingor
and teachers.
For example,
in
move
a structuring
or problem to be discussed
the topic
attention'on
of
launching
by either
between students
launch
function
the pedagogical
moves serve
1966, p. 4)
et al.,
Example:
Teachers
"Today we are going
to talk
"
about cats.
SOLICITING
Moves in
to encourage
physical
this
category
persons
response.
imperatives,
addressed
All
designed
to
elicit
to attend
to
something,
are
questions
are solicitations,
(Bellack
and requests.
a verbal
or
response,
to elicit
as are commands,
1966, p. 4)
et al.,
Examples: `
(a)
Teacher:
-"Look"
at'that!
"
0
(b) Teacher:
"What is
it? "
RESPONDING
These moves bear's
only
and occur
fulfill'the
at.,
questions
1966,
relationship
to
Their
in'relation
expectation
teachers'
reciprocal
are
of
them.
soliciting
classified
to
pedagogical
thus
moves;
as responding
p. 4)
Examples
Teacher:
*Child:
"What
"It'3
is it? "
a bucket
of
60
r
water.
"
moves
soliciting
function
students'
moves.
is
to
to
answers
(Bellack
at
REACTING
These moves are
or prior
responding,
what has been said

while
moves:
solicitation,.
designated
move,
move is
preceding
moves serve
by a teacher,
directly
or negatively)
from
a student's
by a
for
for
response,
et
responding
elicited
as the occasion
(Bellack
move.
(by clarifying,
moves differ
only
by
elicited
(positively
always
of
directly
to modify
Reacting
previously.
soliciting,
are not
to rate
and/or
as a reacting
but
moves serve
a responding
Rating
reactions.
these
or expanding)
synthesizing,
is
reacting
Pedagogically,
them.
by a structuring,
occasioned
al.,
1966,
p.
example,
4)
Example:
Teachers
"What
is-it?
Child:
*Teacher:
"It's
"Yes,
a bucket of water. "

and the bucket is red. "
The present
coding
"
system acknowledges
pedagogical
move types;
however,
structuring
moves, this
type of pedagogical
in the coding
included
all
four
of Bellack's
because the data did not

move is only
include
many
briefly
manual..
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN RESPONDING AND REACTING MOVES
_In
the development
made to distinguish
said
,
to fulfil
Consideration
3, reactions.
adequately
at least
and reactions--those
of the coding
system considerable
between responses--moves
minimally
the expectations
which could not be said
was given
to coding
a single
kind
appropriate
and accurate
because one of the criteria
tiating,
responses
and reactions
is a level
61
be
them.
pedagogical
a particular
could
of solicitations--
A response would then have been a level

of reaction.
that
to fulfil
designating
was
effort
level
at
move
4 code
This would have been both
4 detail
for
differen-
(cognitive
level).
seemed to the investigator
However, it
to consider
useful
at
function
their
it
In addition,
reactions.
between
responses
3 because
level
fore,
coding
in
be viewed
response
of
each case
that
given
function
of
function
in
others
1977).
Buckler,
J.
as a pedagogical
as tentative,
the
to make the distinction
moves,
1966;
al.,
et
function
pedagogical
from
different
moves and reacting
responding
the
is
seemed reasonable
had done, so (Bellack
field
a distinct
as having
would be more
it
that
There-
the application
pending
3 must
level
at
the
the
of
4 criterion.
level
(2)
and
solicitation,
eliciting
(see
content
teristics
Coding
both
distinguishing
its
its
the
section
definition
between
congruence
in
appropriateness
introduction,
Manual,
establish
for
lines
by (1)
is characterized
A response
5).
terms
of
These
characguide-
and also
a response
of
the
with
moves.
moves and reacting
responding
Congruence
0
Congruence
language.
move must, fulfill,
child's
the
of
language
demands put
teacher
solicitsa
child's
move,
In
least
at
in
forth
noun or noun phrase
soliciting
as a response,
(RES det4s2
must
if
Thus,
move.
consist
way,
minimal
some stipulated
a noun or noun phrase
minimum of
to be coded
in
the
the
to be coded as a response,
order
(SOL det4-2),
of
at
least
a
the
a
or 4).
Examples:
It
intelligible
T Solt
C rest
Who is this?
Cat. [noun]
T sol:
C res:
Who is this?
The cat. [noun phrase]
should
be noted
that
only utterances
can be coded as responses.

62
which are largely
If, the utterance
contains
an
must be in
part
determined
If
is
language
it
does not
this
for
that
the
comprehension
include
the
of
unintelligible
Therefore,
coded as a reaction.
not
can be
meaning
with
unintelligible
and decipherable
minimal
responses'do
unintelligible
probable
interfere
the move is
present,
its
where
more than
codes
include
the move to be a response
a position
so that
utterance.
speech
for
part,
unintelligible
any categories
the
which
syllables.
Examples:
a) T sol:
*C res:
Who will
it fall
- the police.
b) T sol:
*C rea:
Who will
----
on?
it fall
on?
the police.
In example "a, " the unintelligible

" "on, " or "to.
"in,
word
"
In
syllable
might
any event,
no matter
unintelligible
word was meant to be, it
is unlikely
of the child's
response
In contrast,
utterance
child's
were replaced
it
police,
their
by language.
could
in his
Thus,
also
teacher's
be, "It
a response.
inasmuch. as it
utterance,
is-no
trick
will
indicate
if
fall
"Who will
on the
But the child's

the police,
" which would

the
way of knowing what the child
meant
is coded as a reaction.
solicited
and the language of the child's

63
the
that
the syllables
solicited,
does not address
the utterance
move is coded as having
noun phrase,
the teacher
be, "The cat will
Because there
original
if
might
the utterance
be coded as a reaction
solicitation.
move is coded as a response.
or might not be a response
might
" rendering
utterance
the meaning
is virtually
in the utterance
placement
on? " the next utterance
fall
that
in example "b, " the number of unintelligible
and also
syllables
Thus, the child
the
the
what
would be changed because it
intelligible.
completely
represent
a minimum of a noun or
reaction
is coded as
(The
syllables
unintelligible
3.1
plus
as described
a noun phrase,
in section
)
above.
THE MANNER IN WHICH AND THE DEGREE TO WHICH
LEVEL 4-
3.4
PEDAGOGICALFUNCTIONSARE CARRIEDOUT
In
level
3i
each pedagogical
In
addition
-
in the conversation.
features
carried,
degree
describe
that
Level
out.
to which
carried
move was seen as serving
ways in which these functions
describe
functions
pedagogical
each move has certain
to this,
the various
4 details
a function
are
the manner in which and the

noted
at
level
3 are
actually
out.
The level
4 details
Solicitations:
response
language
cognitive
are:
prescribed
solicited
level solicited
Responses:
cognitive
correctness
level
Reactions:
level,
cognitive
rating function
SOLICITATIONS
Soliciting
another
participant
preliminary
is "the
(fulfilling
the
moves serve
analysis
of his
response-expectant
responding
function
data that
eliciting
Bellack
(Bellack
a response
found in the
the core of classroom

move followed
soliciting
"
move.
of
et al.,
from
discourse
by the expectancy
1966, p. 87).
64
0
study of the data collected
In the preliminary
it
inve$tigator,
the teachers'_soliciting
seemed that
but that
of responses,
expectant
by this
there
moves* were
differences
were great
moves were fulfilling
degree to which, the responding
in the
those
expectations.
In- fact,
to fulfill
be said
Instead,
all.
were not
and therefore
to
Thus,, it
the
to
the
fact
features
three
(1)
the, control
were
the
look
at
of the subject
the teacher, in response
matter,
to the nature
at
that
be said
to be
only
spoken.
moves in
of
the coding
over the nature
(2). the control
participation,
by utterances
soliciting
focus
primary
by teachers
exercised
over the unfolding
to
could
having
of, aomeone else
that
followed
but
solicitation,
of
to be responses
be said
not
not
could
solicitations
the expectations
of
moves were
became important
the
the child's
could
many soliciting
addressed
"reactions";
the most basic
even
move,
soliciting
followed
many of the moves. that
exercised
of
system--
of
and extent
by the teacher
(3)-the
and
and extent
terms
actions
taken by
of the child's
participation..
It was thought that in the light

.
better,
understood
how, each participant
message from the soliciting,

following
soliciting
of these features
any soliciting
moves were:
he,
about
what
person
in
move of what it
move.
The issues
(1) what message is

the potential
the conversation,
is he is
that
*In the data collected-by

investigator,.
this
Therefore,
were made by teachers.
solicitations
the solicitor
used in describing
unless
otherwise
could be
geto
the
to do in the move
arose regarding
transmitted
respondent,
65
it
should
to the other
do next;
and
all
nearly
the word "teacher"
indicated.
is
"
the features
determined
for
The details
expected
of the child's
The first
,options
made available
5.1).
The options
or, no; selecting;
construction
5j section
of-a
construction
to tell.
(SOL det3-1).
that
solicitation
might
to fulfill
solicit
need only
look
The teacher
a-minimum of a nonverbal
here expectations
by saying,
for
range of correct
of a response where one
but it
is not possible
specifies
in her
action
is required
a response.
"Look at the policeman's
to have fulfilled
Thual
66
by the
the teacher
face, " and the child
the response-expectant
move.
yes
which one.
-o,. Nonverbal
child'
applies
repeating;
range of correct
a specific
where-no
(see chapter
response;
correct
and construction
types of construction
of. the previous
response;
of the single
of. a response
responses has been specified;
of the response
nonverbal
from within
response
construction
responses;
are:
the
the degree of his
for
the content
which the
describes
It
responses.
to the responder
in determining
participation
the nature
over
is the degree-to
the range of correct
specifies
solicitor
to
3)
which is prescribed
factor
be shown later
participation.
(SOL Detail
Response Prescribed
ways the
important
by the teacher
exercised
of
the behaviour
viewpoint,
Each of these ways will
of the control
the behaviour
of the nature
in certain
to prescribe
the responder.
be-components
Given this
move.
can be said
behaviour-of
were coded.
4 describe
on level
solicitations
the particular-soliciting
of a. solicitor
that
of solicitations
emphasis
response-expectant
in the next move as a function
or allowed
and extent
This
message is transmitted.
(2) how that
soliciting
(SOL det3s2).,
Repeating
either
solicitation,
The teacher
trip
make the policeman
over.
(SOL det3-3).
Selecting
child
the actual
utterance:
Can you say all
that? "
child
to select
The teacher
acceptable
that
"The cat is
some of the teacher's
must repeat
intonation,
or through
verbally
in her
prescribes
response
one of the choices
the child
trying
by offering
solicits
She thereby
choices.
to
the
"Is
For example:
she provides.
the
expects
he
"bad
cat?
a good cat or aMinimun of yes or no (SOL det3-4).
nature. of her solicitation
the child
Ls 'a yesor
happening
in London? "
Construct
do.
content.
However,
specifies
construction
for
responsibility
,
prescribes
five,
it
section
Construct
responses.
that
is only
the content
about
is
quite
still
engage-the
than the previously

the teacher
options,
and, indeed,
the child
is discussed
while
further
provides
-The-teacher
a specific
takes
the teacher
in chapter
range of correct
"What's
mightsolicit,
67
the
prescribed
5.1. )
a response within
at
provides
increasingly
of the response,
(This
correct
a single
where the response
of a response,
gives
The teacher
does more, actively
in the categories
less and less.
(SOL det3-5).
information
responding
aspects
itself
this
response.
the response
for
from
she expects
he happy? ", or "Is
case the response
In, these prior
by the
specifies
solicitation
there
gives
in this
forming
various
the
response
question
about the'format
"Is
an appropriate
she solicits
'the process-of
clues
of
type of' solicitation
discussed_options
least
in
Although
this
prescribed,
Examples are:
correct
The teacher's
of the response.
the minimum response
The structure
the single
by the-way
response.
chiidin,
a no.
is; required
clues-about-what
indicates
that
The teacher
he doing? " or "Who
are all
these cats? "
In each of these solicitations,
been specified
by the teacher
work the child
is given
his
from within
choice
from within
this
Construct
epeci fled.
a response
In affect,
the teacher
for
"
In this
determining
(SOL Detail
Solicited
category
addresses
"yes"
a
An example of this
"no"
or
noun ox'noun
water will
fall
language elements
only.
through
For example,
through
"
of these instances,
phrase or sentence
the structure
of the response
For example,
the language
is when a teacher
on: the policeman's....
prescribes
"
structure
instances
the teacher
is
a minimum of
solicits
One
of this.
of her
of the response
are to be a
may say,
"The
The second case is where the

that
of her solicitation
the
are to be a verb or verb phrase

"The cat will....
may say,
the teacher
is soliciting
the teacher
solicited.
of speech or
the structure
the teacher
that
is given
the child
of speech or syntactic
prescribes,
phrase only.
me
"What parts
the language elements
that
solicitation,
concerns
There are two other
response.
is, where, the teacher
teacher
part
the
4)
the question,
Sometimes a specified
,
solicited.
case,
language have been solicited?
atructures-of
to determine
"Tell
auch ass
the direction
The second type of prescription
syntactic
the
has been
the, child
solicits
would be a solicitation
in the picture.
responsibility
This
fulfill
where no range of responses
An example of this
Language
of
Any response he chooses
satisfactorily
range will
frame-
a response
constructing
the range, specified.
specified
what is happening
(full
for
responsibility
that
of the solicitation.
expectations
topic.
;
way, but within
in a general
has
the subject
has begun.
68
the child
"
In both
to complete
a
0
however,
More often,
of speech or syntactic
of her solicitation
structure
but rather
structure
For instance,
language element.
does not solicit
the teacher
by the
might prescribe
is to
the language of the response
that
"What's
the bucket
attached
"Rope, " or "A rope, " or "It's
response may be:
The child's
a minimum acceptable
the teacher
be a minimum of a noun or noun phrase:

to? "
part
a specific
to a rope. "
attached
Similarly,
the teacher
that
solicitation
the language of the response
verb or verb phrase or that

solicit,
"What's
"Pulling,
" or "Pulling
Lastly,
this
a teacher
"Tell
sentence.
that
is
to be a minimum of a
must be a sentence.
Thus, she may
"
doing
here?
one
and the child
the rope, " or "He's
pulling
the child
may solicit
me about
are solicitations
it
cannot be satisfied
may responds
the rope. "
a full
to respond with
"What's
and
the picture",
of her
by the structure
might prescribe
with
happening
a response
here? "
of less
than a sentence.
The investigator's
interest
control
the nature
exercise
over
led to this
participation
solicitations:
namely,
in
and extent
approach
coding
the ways in which
the language
prescribes
approach was very arduously

studies
(Robinson
at,
and Rackstraw,
"wh-, " questions,
Nevertheless,
it
arrived
when this
for
was seen that
the form of a solicitation

69
that
This
many other
the question
1972, and Buckler,
studied
rather
solicited
the next move.
considering
"why" questions,
investigator
child's
The emphasis is on what
had put a heavy emphasis on describing
solicitations.
described
elements
itself.
linguistically
the
the language for
to coding
than the language of the solicitation

the solicitation
of
teachers
forms of
1977,
"how"
and
questions.
her data,
itself
often
time and again

seemed to
to do with
have little
for
prescribed
form
Yet,
the nature
about
to make his
the
solicitation,
from
noun phrase
the
both
Although
child.
first,
the
in
that
system
coding
features.
teachers
It
soliciting
described
gives
(See chapter
5,
the
the
involving
language
verbal
is
in
this
that
move is
the
one of
elements.
phenomenon
but
of
nonetheless
one of
this
the
of
aspects
to explore
the ways in which
and extent
of
5.1,
for
the
a further
child's
elaboration
should be noted
is
quite
moves
for
the way in which language
that
the other, pedagogical
language of the utterance
itself,
That is,
regard
moves.
responses
(See chapter
and reactions
moves.
70
is
3, section
describe
and thus were considered
the language of these utterances
to surrounding
for
is treated
from the way in which language
different
for
without
he doing? "
is
a response
person's
section
a noun or
questions,
with
the nature
over
"What
structure
This
3.1. ) The language details
details.
for
us the potential
control
exercise
participation.
on this.
that
for
deals
system
same apparent
distinguishing
system's
is
expectation
coding
the
is
teacher
demands upon the next
different
place
the
this
have
the
of
second,
The way, in which

questions
solicitations
to see
a minimum of
"what"
child
questions
or sentence'from
phrase
are
the
of
the researcher
solicitation
or verb
a verb
expectation
the
the
us anything
two "what"
these
he? " requires
is
question
required
allows
system
while
child,
a minimum of
requires
noun,
"What
tell
"What
ask,
use the
does not
Coding
coding
could
solicitations
form
acceptable.
present
a teacher
the participation
of
and extent
the
Both
the question
response
to
according
that
"
"What...?
he doing? "
is
level)
the cognitive
instance,
For
responding.
is he? " or "What
(or
language
the
could
the
as level
be coded
However, the language detail
for
solicitations--language
4.
(It
move, and thus is considered
pedagogical
succeeding
may be of interest
but was eventually
system,
not to further
The third
for
order
him
Originally,
the
Benjamin
when these
various
data,
were
they
solicited
At
response
first
of
recalling.
seeing,
element.
to be too
mainly
at three
The element
cognitive
level
solicited
Taba's
is
can be isolated
solicited
71
purposes
the
of
this
the
in the study
level
by the child
the child's
is solicited,
are observing,
and remembering or
involved
here.
and discussed
is usually
with
that
directs
When this
identifying,
However,
levels.
teacher
required
or opinion
the
who participated
of information.
processes
for
basis
was determined
the
categories
considered.
cognitive
level,
in
child
number of
(1956),
detailed
children
recognizing,
that
served as
solicitation.
cognitive
carefully
it
trials,
cognitive
No judgment
seeks knowledge
were
the
were used on a trial
such
the major psychological

locating,
the
categories
others
considered
to be a unit
seemed
level
the
of
way to
a large
to describe
of hearing-impaired
the
that
the cognitive
required
considered
categories
responses
features
concerns
processes
Bloom's
of'many
As a result
because it
eliminated
an acceptable
investigator
and those
teachers
in
to be necessary
by teachers.,
study.
thought
to respond
the
categories
(1964),
is,
included
5)
type of prescription
that
solicited,
(SOL Detail
Solicited
Level
of level
)
system.
the focus of the coding
Cognitive
to a
the language of
originally
of the three
any understanding
as part
for
1 detail
a level
that
of the solicitation--was
solicitations--language
in the coding
only be coded in relation
solicited--can
The teacher
individual
as an
observable
in the picture.
Solicitations
";
"What
he
has
got?
such as
"Have you seen this
this? " all
of information
before? "; and "What is
seek units
picture
from the
child.
level
The second cognitive
identify,
of
is
teacher
or remember
following:
the
cause
and effect,
"inference"
is
the
Solicitations
the fish
It
the
"Where
as
to cover
level
will
or
term
range
of
information.
of
" and "Is
fall?
the water
determine
the
that
a wide
the unit
of
to do one
an opinion,
be noted
should
loosely,
very
and then
state
or
recognize,
information,
of
you caught? " seek an inference
like
this
based on one or more
information.
At the third
respond using
The teacher
level,
cognitive
the teacher
a minimum of an inference
is soliciting
recognize,
identify,
something
about it;
the child
based on another
(a) observe,
to:
(c)
then
and
draw a further
inference.
locate,
then (b)
of information;
or remember a unit
to
the child
solicits
infer
based on
inference
inference.
that
Thus, when the teacher

, his
two units
judgment
future.
above
such
that
of
at
used here
activities
cognitive
least
make a value
or discuss
predict
units
relate
information,
of
some unit(s)
In such a case,
locate,
to observe,
the child
soliciting
is an
solicit
might
of information.
based on one or more units
inference
the
a teacher
that
head? " the teacher
the water
string
of
information);
and then
(inference
Often
solicits
about
the teacher's
(c)
infer
the
the child
then
fall
the water
will-make
information),
string
(unit
"Who's going
asks,
(b)
(inference
that
preceding
the
to:
to make the water go on

(a)
infer
that
based
cat
locate
is
72
the
of
to pull
the
inference).
does not specify
solicitation
pulling
on unit
going
and identify
the particular
0
level
cognitive
teacher
"What's
solicits,
holding
levels
cognitive
acceptable
the catapult"
(inference
Further,
a teacher
is
whether
to fire
going
"He's
or
catapult"
to
going
of information).
the
shoot
specifying
or on another
solicits,
"What's
response
by saying
teacher
to fire
going
without
information
of
an acceptable
may give
the
an inference
on units
"He's
may respond,
"He's
or
of information),
when the
example,
to do? " the child
the child
may solicit
when the
For example,
to be based
For
inference.
he doing"
a range of
solicits
of the response.
(unit
the catapult"
it
but rather
of the response,
(inference
based
policeman"
(inference
on unit
he going
"He's
information),
of
based
on an earlier
inference).
Lastly,
level
the
teacher
of the response
respond on any level

this
holding
the rope"
the water
he wishes.
based
fall
(unit
on the
of
policeman"
included
Rather,
does deafness
list
raised
by
non-deaf
encouraged
to be a part
concrete
on an inference).
of cognitive
thinking
of deafness?
73
solicited
skills
5, namely:
of an overall
Thus,
to what
one of the
To what degree
of the world,
patterns
level
cognitive
(a) as a response
in chapter
people as part
to make
going
system for
in the coding
the rope"
pulling
"He's
based
impose a concretization
degree are the so-called
thought
(inference
(1) "He's
(b)
as a means of addressing
and
questions
itself
or
(3)
may
solicitation,
respond
(2) "He's
they were developed
data,
found
in
the
was
long-range
more
might
cognitive
the child
case,
to the teacher's
information);
be
to
meant
an exhaustive
not
were
by teachers.
In this
of information);
on unit
The categories
is
Thus,
"
doing
here?
the child
one
"What's
(inference
at all.
expected
the
specifying
without
may solicit
and to what
deaf
the
of
response
the codes for
to what
cognitive
level
solicited
that
abstraction
least
the teacher
specifies
the child's
identified
et al.,
system's
Taba et
codes for
cumulative
poaaible
1964;
al.,
cognitive
level
in
of
response
Thus,
the question
this
(Bellack
coding
of
of congruence
levels
by
the
facilitates
a way that
have
solicited
reflect
solicited
cognitive
of
effect
1966).
Taba,
to address
competencies
of the children's
level
and responses
solicitations
various
children,
levels
cognitive
desire
investigator's
the teacher
researchers
between the cognitive
and the cognitive

1966;
or at
response,
response.
a relationship
teachers
in his
that
or abstraction
about hearing
In research
or
of concreteness
of the child
requires
the range of concreteness

for
level
the particular
address
the
of
study
the
on the
solicited
children.
RESPONSES
Responding moves bear a reciprocal

moves, and their
soliciting
determining
3.3,
moves (Bellack
that
function
to fulfill
is
1966, p. 18).
et al.,
the expectation
(section
above
between Responding and Reacting
4 details
are coded for
responding
for
The criteria
are discussed
a move is a response
Differentiating
Two level
level
pedagogical
to soliciting
relationship
Moves).
moves: cognitive
and correctness.
Cognitive
level
In order
fulfill,
of response
5)
to be coded as a response,
at least
demands put forth

congruence
(RES Detail
between
in some stipulated
in the soliciting
the cognitive
the child's
way, the cognitive
minimal
move.
level
74
move must
That is,
solicited
there
and the
must be
cognitive
of
level
of the child's
inference
(RES det5-2)
of information
unit
if
a teacher
in order
an
solicits
(SOL det5-2),
of information
of at least
move must then consist
child's
For example,
next move.
an inference
the
based on a
to be coded as a response.
Example:
T aol:
*C res:
Which country do you think

Probably America.
As described
Responding
and Reacting
for
required
tentative
of
of
level
for
of
along
the
inference
child's
based
either
level
specified,
of
the
Correctness
Unlike
for
the content
appropriate,
correctness
itself
level
fewer
as a range,
correct,
confirmation
for
unit
are:
have
for
the
of
for
codes
level
been
the
cognitive
information,
of
and inference
information,
than
responses
for
may be
solicited
the
or unspecified,
can be determined
cognitive
exactly.
6)
of response,
of the response,
any
4.
codes
cognitive
is
Consequently,
(SOL det4)
correctness
a move to be considered
is now rated
are:
the
of
(SOL Detail
response
cognitive
not a criterion
detail
specified
response
of
while
level
the considerations
(RES det5)
are
between
cognitive
level
The reciprocal
There
because
of
solicited
on one or more units
be from?
Differentiating
3 must await
at
some of
response
based on an inference.
solicitations
level
coded
with
might
a response.
level
level.
cognitive
at
level,
cognitive
earlier,
of
coding
congruence
a response
cognitive
The codes
described
Moves),
3.3,
a move to be considered
coding
congruence
(section
previously
it
In this
a response.
which has already
as to its
correctness.
partially
correct,
75
of response
been judged
The codes for
and incorrect.
is
.
REACTIONS
Reacting
or prior
responding,
the
immediately
preceding
(2) Repeating
because they generally

is
which
discussed
therefore
Rating
domain
the
function
of
A preceding
it
times
at
child,
herself.
rates
coded as having
are
described
level
in
section
4.
These
is
the
teacher,
reason,
the preceding
move.
the
that
or
in
teacher
teachers
and children
The codes
for
some other
rates
and sometimes
function
(TREA/CREA det3i. 0).
rating
the
the
teacher
can be
functions
to the repeating
reaction;
and/or
There is no explicit
rather,
modifying
Example:
T sol:
C res:
*T rea:
What is
A hat.
he wearing?
and the hat is red.

76
moves are
below:
component in the speaker's
relates-"only
both
speaker.
either
moves,
reacting
negatively,
positively,
rates
this
3)
of rating
case
For
4.
"
than adjoining
of
(TREA/CREA Detail
the
child
at
level
at
coded
are
functions
most often
the
level
only
3.5.
serve the function
rated
No-rating
rating
of
with
by clarifying,
broader
a context
require
move may be rated
Although
way.
content
or
positively
coded
(e. g.,
Such behaviours
reactions
Some reactions
therefore
move and are
or expanding).
synthesizing,
moves serve
always associated
are almost
or modifying
(e. g.,
been said
what has previously
Such behaviours
negatively).
Reacting
functions:
two types of pedagogical

(1) Rating
1966, p. 4).
et al,
soliciting,
they are not directly
moves, although
reacting
by them (Bellack
elicited
by structuring,
moves are occasioned
[det3.0]
the reaction
of a previous
move.
(TREA/CREA det3-1).
Positive
distinctly
affirmative
The teacher
to a preceding
rating
or child
gives
move.
Example:
T, sole
C res:
*T rea:
(TREA/CREA det3-2).
Qualifying
the child
In
this
is
saying
the
case,
through
reacting
words
move is
[det3-l1
indicates
The speaker
the preceding
regarding
reservation
do?
What will
the water
It is about to fall.
Yes, you are right.
or
is as if
It
move.
the teacher
"I'm
not
"qualifying.
as
"
intonation,
coded
some
or
"
satisfied.
Examples
T
C
T
*T
sol:
res:
rea:
rea:
Negative
distinctly
And what sort of houses are they?

Um, a flat.
Yes.
flats
But in America they're
not just
Idet3-'2)
(TREA/CREA det3-3).
negative
rating
The teacher
to the preceding
are
or the child
they?
gives
move.
-Examples
T sol:
C res:
*T rea:
What is it?
A bottle.
No.
[det3-3j
The use of the word no, or yes does not necessarily

of the move as negative
rating
rating,. to consider
or positive.
the intonation
It
of the speaker
indicate
is necessary
in addition
the
in coding
to his
words.
Acknowledging
not rate
a previous
acknowledges
that
(TREA/CREA det3-4).
move either
the previous
positively
speaker
Examples
4s
C rea:
*T rea:
I like
that
Mm. (det3-41
cat.
77
l
The teacher
said
or the child
or negatively
something.
but only
does
level
Cognitive
of
reactions
level
The cognitive
reactions
and child
for
as
same
3.5
collected,
tool
being
discreet
in
These codes are the

3.4,
in section
Cognitive
of Response.
Level
constructed
in
that
teachers
of
the
to achieve
its
a study
order
to describe
needed
of
and from
schools
was clear
behaviours
of information,
ESTABLISHING RELATIONSHIPS AMONGMOVES
From observation
it
of a
coded for
levels
unit
are:
reactions
and Cognitive
LEVEL 5-
data
the content
modify
The cognitive
and are discussed
responses,
Solicited
Level
4.
5)
and inference
inference,
that
of reactions
move is coded at level
preceding
teacher
(TREA/CREA Detail
more than
purpose,
some of
(level
and children
preliminary
1),
the
the
the
some of
of
mechanics
verbal
Over and above

behaviours
of
or succeeding
of
evolution
these,
the
level
and link
5, then,
for
solicitations
have
the
and reactions),
train
coding
not
with:
78
the
preceding
the overall
The codes
thought.
system
describe
these
moves in
a conversation
that
that
groups
(known
of moves
to each other.
(1)
the conversational
move (coded in details

addressing
than
of
only
but
3 and 4).
how particular
and record
a relationship
is concerned
each pedagogical
track
and its
to each other,
as segments)
Level
5 of
to
functional
(levels
one
to moves other
related
and to be able
have a relationship
and the
to describe
was a need
They acknowledge
relationships.
hereafter
are
conversation
at
conceptualized
there
a speaker
one,
2),
nd
any move
a succeeding
between
relationships
(level
interaction
the issue
function
6 and 7 for
of the relationship
move to previous
ofa
moves within
pedagogical
all
the way in which teachers

of thought
trains
and links
is
in
the coding
details
advance
details
these
that
the
of the subject
control
over
by the
teacher
of the child's
and extent
is
It
systems.
with
in
other
the unfolding
over
in
and the actions
matter,
coding
interrelationships
and their
function
conversational
of
previous
exercised
to the nature
response
2,
chapter
so that
be described.
could
a major
the coding'of
organize
and the way in which
conversation
are developed
As discussed
were included
These details
moves).
the
(coded in detail
between segments of the conversation
relationship
for
the same segment, and (2)
can be
participation
atudied.
The former
functions
mainly
is
reflected
and links
for
in the codes for
in
mainly
the
codes
for
conversational
is reflected
the latter
solicitations,
while
conversational
function
for
and links
reactions.
SOLICITATIONS
CONVERSATIONAL
(SOL
FUNCTION
Detail
-
Solicitations
Taba,
1980;
Garvey
direct
between
the course
the
of
matter
detail
7 (link)
the control
during
for
exercised
the
play
the
course
of
is
the
in
ways teachers
the
function)
in part
use
subject
and
to describe
over the unfolding
of the subject
For example,
when a teacher
conversation.
79
r'
Fox,
moves often
by controlling
moves were designed
by the teacher
role
Soliciting
6 (conversational
Detail
soliciting
an important
One of
conversation
1975,1978;
Mishler,
and children.
conversation.
the conversation.
of
Rowe, 1974a;
1981, ) to
teachers
to direct
solicitations
matter
1971;
Barnes,
and Bernanger,
conversations
(Taba et ale,
have been shown by many researchers
1966;
1964,
6)
and a child
solicits
teacher
the unfolding
can control
by (a)
further
soliciting
on the basis
further
in her
entirely
in
responds
child
therefore
next
subject
in
the direction
influence
a child
in
they
could
"lesson
the control
exercised
way in which the content

made by other
participants
conversational
function
Content
move is
the
the
soliciting
or
matter--
subject
degree
to
that
types of
is
concerned
plan.
both
with
and the
itself
in relation
their
concerning
to the particular
or unfolds
of
seems that
It
the content
over
to the moves
The codes for
were developed
of each code follows
stage
solicitation
for
(SOL det6a0).
a segment
has yet been solicited
to begin.
these
with
here.
The focusing
While
in a focusing
80
(c)
observed much
and the
matter
function)
of solicitations
over
control
solicitations
Focusing
the
evolves
A description
in mind.
of
response
by the-teacher
subject
own solicitation
direction.
in
6 (conversational
detail
Thus,
and the
the investigator
responses
by children
offered
solicits
degrees of flexibility
"
(b)
different
plan,
and
participation
the
previously.
subject
have on that
changing
by (a)
handling
the
example,
soliciting
can exercise
to her
she did
their
(b)
child's
instance,
data,
took
(a)
showed
varying
teachers
content
than
teachers
teacher
for
the preliminary
amongst
a teacher
responding
information
In studying
variation
(b)
again,
less
soliciting
sets
the
matter,
(c)
(the
way
some inappropriate
of
same information
issues
If
for
matter,
own move, or
or
the
solicitation,
subject
move,
solicitation.
coded as a reaction),
the unfolding
both
on her
the child's
of
the
of
based
the
to
correctly
responds
no specific
solicitation,
solicitation
piece
it
of
the context
establishes
will
A focusing
emerge.
the direction
directing
or
a nonverbal
of the content
is a conscious
solicitation
(in
attention
to change
effort
is accomplished
This
1) focusing
solicits
which the discussion
within
by:
which case the teacher
[SOL det3-1J)
response
Examples:
a) T sol:
b) T sol:
Look at
Look
2) soliciting
responses
(response
[det3-1];
focusing
that.
the child
nonverbal
function
is
(response
the
window.
cat up at
[det3-11;
is
nonverbal
prescribed
function
is focusing
conversational
[det6-O])
the
at
is
prescribed
conversational
[det6w0])
to focus
(in
which case no range of
[det3-71
was prescribed
Example:
T sols
C rea:
*T sol:
Initial
that
Mm.
All right,
content
a new focus or a shift

some specific
content
(det3a2-61).
prescribed.
that
shooting
It
solicitation.
in the focus
solicitation
cat is doing,
81
It
where the teacher

response
of
of
solicits
the type of response
because the child
the policeman.
in a segment
which is some form
content
the establishment
reflects
(so that
For instance
The initial
solicitation
"
doing
there?
the child's
one
up
by the teacher's
what that
the first
or language
is
me what's happening in the picture.

[det3a7, det6"01
(SOL det6z1).
solicitation
is not a focusing
"What's
tell
of the segment is
solicitation
is
prescribed
[det3-1];
nonverbal
function
conversational
focusing [det6-0])
(response
Look at the picture.
is
pulling
is
asks a child,
is
prescribed
instructed
the
string
to tell
or
Examples
Solicitation
In this
of
any new elements

of
(SOL det6 2).
as that
the same content
solicits
of a
introducing
She does so without
in the segment.
solicitation
new elements
without
same content
case the teacher
previous
[focusing
SOLD
[initial
SOL]
Look at that.
What is it?
Water.
T sol:
*T sol:
C res:
in her solicitation.
in one
can do this
The teacher
two ways.,
1) She solicits
the same or nearly
again using
same
words.
Example:
T sol:
r*T sol:
2) Or,
she solicits
that
a referent
What's the name of it?

Do you know the name of
again,
this
time
using
in the earlier
was explicit
it?
a pronoun-in
place
of
solicitation.
Example:
1) T sol:
C rea:
What's
-
What is he?
*T sol:
2) T sol:
*T sol:
Solicitation
det6s3).
earlier
previously
solicits
but
solicitation
The teacher
clues--while
What's coming out of the dustbin?

What do you think it is?
but introducing
of same content,
The teacher
elements.
the man called?
still
the same response as was sought by an

a restated
offers
seeking
solicited
in
new element(s)
(SOL
additional
form
with
a new element
information--in
the same element
or elements
or
essence,
more
as were
from the child.
Example:
T sol:
WE sol:
How many are in his gang?

How many cats are in his gang?
9
82
of more limited
Solicitation
only
solicits
content
The teacher
in
a previous
sought
she
of the response
a part
(SOL det6.4).
solicitation..
Example: -
T Sol:
T Sol:
C rea:
Look at that.
What is it?
Water.
T Sol:
C rea:
T rea:
C. rea:
T Sol:
C rea:
Where's
*T sol:
the water?
----in the bucket.

Yes.
The water's
Yeah.
What's going to happen?
--
In the example above,

happen? " seeking
When the
by asking
content.
is,
teacher
"on
teacher
the
"Where
that
will
it
Solicitation
("fall")
is coded,
element or elements
The response
of
a part
solicitation.
of content
policeman.
should
the
that
be noted
content,
contains
solicitation.
(SOL det6-5).
element(s)
of content
means that
the teacher
solicits
have not previously
been
that
"
now
solicited
the response
It
to
limited
more
she solicits
to the earlier
it
going
on the
that seeks more limited
of additional
category
"
only
fall
will
response,
fall?
is
earlier
a solicitation
of the response
When this
get
"What's
solicits,
"The water
" which
in her
solicited
the teacher
response,
doesn't
policeman,
that usually
part
the
fall?
it
Where will
an
solicited.,
Examples:
(1) T sol:
C res:
*T sol:
(2) T sol:
C res:
*T sol:
What's the policeman

Shouting.
Why is he shouting?
doing?
What will happen?

The cat will
pull the rope.
And when he pulls
the
83
rope
what
will
happen?
Solicitation
When this
det6-6).
is coded,
category
the teacher
seeks a correction,
or language of the
of the content
or confirmation
clarification,
or confirmation
clarification,
of correction,
(SOL
utterance.
child's
An example of the teacher

How are
Cut it.
T sol:
C res:
they
to make the water
going
is:
a clarification
soliciting
head?
come on his
Cut what?
*T sol:
An example
T sol:
C res:
the
of
teacher
But who's got

Uh, the teddy
is:
a correction
soliciting
the end of the string

bear in the dustbin.
from
bucket?
that
Yes.
Are they teddy bears?
T rea:
*T sol:
An example
T sol:
C rea:
T sol:
the
of
teacher
Have you seen

Before.
When?
C res:
*T sol:
soliciting
this
is:
a confirmation
before?
picture
On the television.
On the television?
Unclear
conversational
coded when the precise
code cannot be designated
of the move cannot be determined.

is interrupted
(SOL det6s7).
function
This most often
This category
is
because the function

applies
when a move
is not completed.
and the solicitation
Example:
T sol:
*T sol:
C res:
Are they his

Are they [T]
friends
(child
or not?
interrupts
"
the teacher)
No.
Language solicitations
What has been described
function
of
solicitations
are- codes describing

solicit
language.
above
that
are
solicit
felt
84
codes
content.
the conversational
The investigator
the
function
it
for
conversational
to
In addition
of solicitations
was important
to
these
that
between
differentiate
in
some respects
two types
depending
was important
of
the
prevalence
language
were developed
be used for
both
it
initial
is
difficult
to determine
solicitation
of
content
that
move ensues,
soliciting
direction--that
is,
the
establishing
either
or of
segment
For even
language.
soliciting
If
though
a move is
an
a second
to have
language--and
segment
as a content
to
solicitation,
likely
or
content
certain
was designated
whether
move is
soliciting
current
of
as an initial
prospectively
codes
separate
function
solicitations.
identified
language
the data.
While
solicitation
and language
content
it
felt
with
in
solicitations
initial
or similar
moves dealing
conversational
of
may be clearly
a solicitation
often
the
these
that
investigator
the
(SOL det6a1).
solicitation
the category
functions
Also,
language
data
preliminary
fully
function
conversational
distinct
serve
situation.
of
to describe
moves,
the
to describe
to be able
Initial
language
could
on the
in
and content
seemed from
it
since
solicitations
of
functions,
because
language
a clear
thus
or a language
segment.
Solicitation
The teacher
of
the
solicits
that
solicitation
should
might
without
hints
or clues
language
a previous
are
added
more information
provide
(SOL det6-A).
new elements
as in
same response
No additional
solicitation.
response
same language
about
to
the
what
previous
the
be.
Example:
T sol:
C rea:
*T sol:
Solicitation
(SOL det6=B).
an earlier
Say:
"The
--Tell
rope.
me that
cat's
got
again.
of same language,
The teacher
but
introducing
new element(s)
the same response
solicits
language solicitation
"
a rope.
in the segment.
85
This
by
sought
was
as
time,
however,
is restated
the solicitation
elements
of language not previously
information--often,
seeking
an element or
The teacher
given.
new
offers
but is still
her solicitation,
more clues--in
the same element(s)
introduces
it
so that
solicited.
previously
Examples
T sol:
C res:
*T sol:
C res:
In America they
Garbage'can.
Solicitation
of
when a teacher
solicits
this
in
language
limited
than
in
a ...
(SOL det6-C).
language
response and doesn't
time seeking
an earlier
it
call
more limited
wants a certain
again,
was seeking
cat in?
What's this
The dustbin.
only
a part
get it,
a previous
she
of the response
She therefore
solicitation.
Sometimes
that
she
more
solicits
solicitation.
Example:
T rea:
So the American cat is

the apartment building.
T sol:
rea:
"C
Can you say all

[S] The
*T solo,
Solicitation
teacher
an element
"
that?
[S] The American cat...

language
of additional
solicits
in the garbage can outside
or elements
[det6-C]
element(s)
of
language
(SOL det6-D).
The
has not
that
been solicited.
previously
Example:
T sol:
C res:
*T sol:
SOLICITATIONS
"
You say: "He's shooting.
He's shooting.
"He's shooting
Say:
the catapult.
(Detail
LINK,
-
While conversational
the content
the
link
7)
function
describes
or language of the current
records
the
"
speaker
and the
86
between
the relationship
move and some previous

relative
location
of
that
move,
Coding of the link
move.
previous
function.
conversational
permits
of teacher
matter,
subject
teacher
exercises
coded
linked:
(1)
move is
function
location
move to which
(teacher,
(2)
speaker
preceding
preceding
one).
Relationships
among moves within
new initial
to
of coding
solicitation
initial
can be seen as being closely

Groups of moves that
Moves'within
current
pedagogical
move);
(the
move
than the immediately
Thus,
an initial
are related
to each other
in this
each group
segments.
the relationships
function
between them are coded as the conversational
link.
the
and
Examples
T Sol:
C rea:
T Sol:
-What's the name of that cat?

[det6-1,
det7-9 - not linked]
-What's
[det6"2,
Careful
coding
possible'to-discern,
his
name?
det7"0
linked
-
of conversational
for
example,
who introduced
87
J
to previous
function
and
in terms of, focus.
way are called
to one another;
a segment are related
solicitation
Moves within
solicitation.
related
is divided
the conversation
with
moves a
every several
a conversation,
appears.
the next
the
a segment
groups of moves, each beginning
ending before
the
controls
or child
reaction,
the current
move other
or a preceding
In the course
or child);
teacher
the move relative
of
move,
into
earlier
the
of
The following
interaction.
the; move (solicitation,
of
(3)
and
the
and of the various
strategies,
regarding
of the unfolding
of thought,
it
function,
conversational
with
over the verbal
is
information
Together
bacl, of trains
the tracing
of the
complements the coding
and links
T sol]
makes it
an element
of
how long it
content,
was pursued,
and what teacher
were
strategies
it.
to
pursue
used
Example:
T Sol:
C rear
T Sol:
In this
The child
What's
[det6-1,
String.
"string"
det7-9
- not
linked]
to do with it?
linked
to previous
-
to
say the word
to have introduced
by her first
was prescribed
"
"string.
T soll
to the first.
linked
is
the second solicitation
first
is considered
teacher
cat got?
What's he going
[det6-5,
det7-0
example,
was the
that
the
Nonetheless,
element because the word
that
solicitation.
Example:
T Solt
FC rea:
T yeas
*T", Sol:
Tell
me about the picture.
[det3-7,6-0,7-9-not
linked]
Pu string.
He's put some string.
Why has he put the string
[det6-5,
In the above example,

linked
to the child's
that
solicitation
Relationships
across
In addition
segment, a further
The child
response.
did
not
"string"
prescribe
initial
Segments
solicitation
is
for
is
by the teacher
to have
is considered
" because "string"
by a
was elicited
its
response.
segments
to coding
the, relationships
links
purpose of coding
coded as an initial
solicitation
to
to a previous
of
solicitation
88
relationships
to begin when
[det6-1];
as representing
by linking
each other
initial
was to record
solicitation
can be thought
can be linked
among moves within
A segment is said
segments of the conversation.
an utterance
to a previous crea]
the second solicitation
the element "string,
introduced
across
det7-4-linked
there?
thus,
a segment.
an initial
to which
it
is
each
related.
a train
reflect
of these initial
way the links
In this
can
solicitations
of thought
Example:
*T Sol:
C teat
,
T tea:
T aol:
C rest
What's going to happen with that atone?

Hit the policeman.
The atone's going, to hit the policeman.
Will he be angry? [det6-5, det7-0j
Yee he will.
*T aol:
C res:
/What else is happening?

He's going to trip
the
i*T
T tea:
L_ __C
Yes, he will.
happening
Sol:
What's
rest
He's going
preceding
up.
[dat6'1,
the policeman
A segment is not always related

Sometimes a particular
det7-1
policeman
here?
over
to shoot
[det6-1,
to an entire
move gives
rise
[det6"lj
det7a0]
with
his
catapult.
segment.
previous
to a following
segment.
Examples
T sol:
rea:
CC
--
T reas
What's that
fish.
---
Yes, there's
describes
a fish.
How do you think

sol:
.T
(dialogue
)
continues...
Sometimes a solicitation
initial
cat up there
that
solicitation
fish
that
is not
got?
linked
is not linked
[det6"1]
got there?
to any preceding
to any preceding
the move being coded as the first
(det6ol,
move.
move
move in a train
of
thought.
Example:
T sol:
Where did
C rea:
-f -.
T rea:
C rea:
T reat
L--r
not
linked
L __
-
rea:
-T
*T sol:
the fish
come from?
[TI
I think it's
come out of
Food.
food.
Food, I know it's
But I think it's come out of the dustbin.

What. do you think happened to the cat's hat?
[det6.1,
det7"91
C yeas ---the police.
T yeas He's talking
to the police,
yes.
What's happened to his hat? [det6u'2,
T sol:
(dialogue
)
continues...
89
7- 4]
det7-0I
An
REACTIONS - CONVERSATIONAL FUNCTION (TREA/CREA Detail
(structuring,
move
by any type of pedagogical
Such moves serve to modify
or reacting).
what has been stated

p.
of
172).
a previous
while
move is
It
specific
is in the coding
in
teacher
is
to
possible
participation
the
if
the teacher
solicitation,
herself,
the solicitation
she wants,
other
or changing
such as repeating
something
else
the teacher
Through
entirely,
the
giving
of
of
to
the
child's
details,
teacher
the
matter.
to a teacher's
respond
options,
such as responding
to the child
on the same subject
to
about the
more specifically,
after
a teacher
move a child
what the teacher
has said,
talking
or responding
by
a child's
subject
some clues
of
taken
these
of
analysis
and extent
fails
the
of
ways in which
additional
Similarly,
the subject.
preceding
the actions
that
and extent
has several
soliciting
6),
(detail
and the analysis
details
unfolding
a child
that
move to
that
of
1966,
7).
the nature
and over
et al.,
function
location
the nature
study
over
For example,
options
to
response
control
response
with
in some fashion
a reacting
of
of these two details
can be studied.
also
exercises
(detail
responding,
rate
conversational
and relative
link
coded as its
participation
it
speaker
are occasioned
soliciting,
and/or
content
coded as the
interrelationships
their
the
move is
of
the
3.3,
(Bellack
move
in the occasioning
The relationship
the
above in section
moves, as discussed
Reacting
6)
to some specific
part
has
about
of what
said.
Two characteristics
were coded:
(1) whether
the speaker
conversation
or repeated
elements
move; and (2) whether
the elements
that
introduced
appeared
function
new elements
into
in a related
previous
of the reaction
90
of reactions
the
had been solicited
These behaviours
previously.
occurred
discussed
are
which
in the following
and child
differ
reactions
reactions
in a number of combinations,
The codes for
section.
only
teacher
and are discussed
slightly
here together.
Reactions
do not
that
include
Teacher introduces
code describes
first
repeating
solicited
all
(TREA det6-1).
elements
the case where the teacher
in effect
The
her
answers
own question.
This code is most often
(a)
the child
used when the teacher
says something
and then
solicits,
unintelligible,
Examples
T sol:
T sol:
C rea:
*T rea:
or
(b)
the
teacher
What's been left

What are they?
there?
--
I think
that's
their
doesn't
pause
to wait
goes ahead and gives
bones.
for
a child
response,
but
one herself.
Example:
T sol:
*T rea:
[no pause]
What's his name?
It's
Boss Cat I think.
This code applies

to introduce
the child
all
exclusively
the solicited
to teacher
elements,
(TREA/CREA det6-2).
both speakers
some--but
Often
over a series
not all--of
the solicited
If
the pedagogical
move would be coded as a response,
Speaker introduces
moves.
were
function
of
not as a reaction.
the_solicited
elements
element(s)
are contributed
of moves, as in the following
91
a child
example:
by
How do you think they got him there?

Because they made a mess.
T aol:
C res:
They made a mess.

Oh, I see.
They made a mess deliberately.
And he came to see what the mess was all
(det6-2j
T rea:
T rea:
*T rea:
In this
enough to constitute
elements,
introduced
introduced
the child
example,
some of the solicited

response,
a minimal
be considered
what could
about.
the teacher
while
of the solicited
the rest
elements.
Examples
What's going to happen to the stone?

[det6w2j
policeman.
---It's
going to hit the policeman.
T sol:
*C rea:
T rea:
In
this
the
example,
"policeman,
" but
response.
The teacher
completes
the response
the
In the course
child
puts
of developing
be coded
should
be coded as reactions
between
Responding
reaction
language
if
the
language
language.
is
mentioned
reactions
of
are
in which
language
the
which
of
is
Although
this
here
because
and conversational
Moves),
the move is
coded
issue
it
is
relevant
function.
92
correct
and those
only
(section
correct
with
to
level
introduces
coded
with
congruent
not
that
some
Differentiating
3.3,
is
a
move
such
congruent
may clarify
moves that
speaker
as a partially
move is
child's
the
many different
between
partially
above
and Reacting
solicited.
a context
system,
differentiate
As discussed
It
into
element
the coding
that
as responses
solicited
to be considered
to her solicitation.
should
elements.
element
solicited
too minimal
the child's
were made to accurately
attempts
the
move is
child's
the
contributes
the
as a
the
response
if
solicited
3, not
some characteristics
level
of
5,
it
Examples:
(a)
What's
T sol:
*C rea:
---
T rea:
He's going
(b) T sol:
*C res:
going to do?
(lang.
not congruent,
that cat
policeman.
fall
to make the water
det6s21
on the policeman.
Tell me what's happening in the picture.

There's a teddy bear mucking about in the dustbin.
[lang. congruent,
correct
res]
partially
Speaker introduces
(TREA/CREA det6m3).
elements
unsolicited
Example:
(a)
T
C
T
C
T
*C
*T
(b)
sol:
rea:
sol:
res:
rea:
rea:
rea:
T sol:
C rea:
*C rea:
*T rea:
In earlier
And why is the policeman

cross with the other cat?
know really.
I don't
Well,
look at the state
of the place.
It's
a mess.
Mm.
The street's
a terrible
mess.
Mm, so I think
he's come to reprimand
them. [det6m3]
Have a look
picture.
The top.
--He's
of
decided
elements
been solicited
about
stage
move.
the
element
the
is solicited
the link,
thus
were
data.
minimizing
and/or
seen as part
For
instance,
appropriateness
In
basis
93
of
the
[det6-3]
it
was
of whether
they
the
end,
made at
relevance
of
of
the
what might
by analysing
to determine
or inappropriateness
of a move.
top
judgments
in conjunction
can begin
the
and
about the appropriateness
on the
or unsolicited
an investigator
irrelevance,
aspects
of
at
system the coder was required,
introduced.
only
appropriateness
Such judgments
analysis
were
elements
or not,
the
right
to make judgments
that
these
cat
of the coding
versions
to code
the
[det6a3]
window.,
looking out of the window.
at the time of coding,

relevance
at
the
had
coding
particular
be revealed
whether
with
an
the coding
the relevance
in
of
or
of a move or some
Speaker
det6.4).
ties
together
When the speaker
ties
together
but summarizes what has already
(TREA/CREA
or
of content
elements
he does not introduce
introduced,
language already
already
elements
introduced
any new elements
been said.
Examples:
(a)
T sol:
C res:
Where have you seen these

They come from cartoons.
T sol:
Well, which country

from?
C res:
Probably
(b)
C rea:
T rea:
*C rea:
Speaker
do you think
they might
be
America.
Mm, I think it's

probably
[det6-41
picture.
*T rea:
cats?
an American cartoon
Here is a cat with a catapult.

Here's another cat with a catapult.
in the picture.
There are two cats with catapults
[det6"4j
corrects
or clarifies
content
of
a previous
move
(TREA/CREA det6"5).,
Example:
(a) T sot:
C res:
*T rea:
(b)
Reactions
What's happening in the picture?

The-teddy bear's mucking about in the dustbin.
[det6.51
They aren't
bears,
they're
teddy
cats.
C rea:
T cols
----Pardon?
*C rea:
The fish
that
include
Speaker gives
(det6.
'A).
move
without
is on the floor.
[det6-5]
repeating
the same element(s)
essentially
The speaker
essentially
repeats
adding any new element.
(Examples
(a)
T cols
C rea:
*Trea:
Who's that?
He pulled string.
He pulled the string.
94
(det6. 'Aj
in
a previous
as
a previous
move
(b)
What's
Pulling
T Solt
C rea:
*T
*C
T
*C
[det6"A]
(det6"A]
Pulling.
Pulling.
A sling.
A sling.
rea:
rea:
rea:
rea:
Speaker gives
[det6"A]
some--but
(TREA/CREA
det6"C).
move
move,
adding
without
one doing?
t his
the elements
not all--of
The speaker
part
only
repeats
of a previous
of
a previous
any new elements.
Example:
(a)
T sol:
C rea:
*T rea:
You think
it
--.
Knock his
hat
(b)
T rea:
*C rea:
hiding.
It's
[det6-C]
Hiding.
(c)
T rea:
*C rea:
It's
going
Policeman.
Speaker
introduces
will
solicited
off.
elements
the
of
off?
[det6-C]
the
to hit
[det6uC]
some or all
gives
hat
his
knock
policeman.
of
elements
a previous
move and
(TREA/CREA det6-D).
Examples
T sol:
C rea:
*T rea:
Speaker
introduces
What's that cat going to do?

Catapult.
He's going to shoot the catapult.
some or all
gives
unsolicited
elements
of
the
elements
of
[det6-D]
a previous
move and
(TREA/CREA det6uE).
Example:
T sol:
C rea:,
*T rea:
REACTIONS - LINK
The link
reacting
(The link
doing?
What's the cat in the dustbin
Window.
(det6"Ej
in
There's
that
window.
a cat up
(Detail
7)
complements the conversational
moves in much the same way as it

for
soliciting
moves is
discussed
95
(detail
function
does for
above
soliciting
in
section
6) in
moves.
3.5,
Solicitations
the current
move is related
this
to that
location
speaker and relative

The coding
In
important.
of link
conjunction
facilitates
link
the
teacher
in
With
in
teachers
do trains
whom did
section
face
the
along
might
elements
incorrect
develop
these
lines
of
patterns
and extent
content
of
behaviour
of
the
used by
child's
infomation
on questions
originate,
and how was it
What strategies
used by
are
child
or unintelligible
at length
moves?
How
Suggestions
in these conversations?
is discussed
function,
conversational
of
provide
of
the
records
for
5,
in chapter
5.3.
Reactions
- coding
an unintelligible
A particular
function
and link
The guidelines
are given
only
of
coding
the nature
by each speaker?
of thought
analysis
to
of the current
is particularly
reactions
the
While
move.
preceding
description
Such patterns
forward
carried
teacher
with
the
response
participation.
such as:
of that
for
"
thought?
of
train
move, the link
of a previous
the question,
of as answering
how the content
records
for
move
the occasioning
one in the current
function
the conversational
indicates
can be thought
It
reaction.
"Which move-precedes
the
The link
- Link).
below.
illustrative;
conversational
function
for
and link
a move after
moves
problem arose
for
moves that
that
in the coding
succeeded
were developed
The labeling
of conversational
unintelligible
for
coding
of the speakers
the same guidelines
reversed.
96
apply
utterances.
in such situations
in these guidelines
when speakers
are
is
1.
move if
The current
is strong
there
the child
something
linked
that
evidence
Strong
said.
The child's
a.
move is
teacher
to the preceding
the teacher
preceding move was partially
det4-C-K, N) and the teacher
used at least
is following
is indicated
evidence
child
up on
ift
(CREA
intelligible
the child
some words that
introduced.
Examples:
(1)
,
T sol:
rea:
*T rea:
CC
What's
to do?
he going
(det6-2,
det7-21
pull
--He's'going
to pull on his catapult.
(2) T sols
rea:
*T rea:
Pardon?
.
(P)
floor.
-The, the floor yes.
(3)
'What's
CC
T sol:
C
rea:
-S
L *T rea:
". b.
The child's
det7w2j
det7-21
going to happen to the stone?

(det6-2,
det7-21
policeman.
----
It's
[det6-A,
(det6-E,
going
to hit
preceding
or B] and the succeeding
the policeman.
[det6-2,
(CREA det4-A
move was unintelligible
teacher
det7"2]
to any preceding
move was not related
teacher 'move.
Examples:
(1) T sol:
Crea:
I
*T rea:
What are the other cats doing?

---.
[det6u'3,
Mm, that's
called a catapult.
(2) T sol:
Where, what do you think's

hat?
cat there's
the police.
---He's talking
to the police,
C rea:
*T rea:
c. " The. child's

the teacher
gives
preceding
strong
happened to that
yes.
[det6-E
move was unintellible

of having
evidence
det7"21
understood
det7"21
to the coder but

what the child
said.
Examples
T sol:
-! C rea:
li *T rea:
What has he got?

You think
it's
a red hat.
97
(det6-1,
other
det7-21
2.
The current,
move if
teacher
following
is strong, evidence
there
up on something
[det6-1j,
question
move is coded as related
teacher
she previously
(det6"A-E],
repeating
to a preceding
that
the teacher
said
(e. g.,
was
answering
her own
(det6-31).
elaborating
Examples$
(a) T so1:
C rea:
*T rea:
(b)
What's happened to it?

-----.
It's
all been eaten up.
T rea: `He's
C rea t-----.
WE rea:
If
that
evidence
strong
is
He'll-hit
linked
to
the
"oh,
or
has said
the child
a link
of
the
to
the
(det6-A,
" thereby
det7-41
seeming to
this
something,
Therefore
child.
teacher
preceding
det7-41
policeman.
the policeman.
"yes"
said
the teacher
acknowledge
to hit
going
[det6-1,
was not considered

the
teacher's
move
move.
Examples
3.
a teacher
T sol:
Crea:
*T rea:
Why has he put the string

there?
---Oh,. the policeman doesn't know it's
[det3-4,
fall.
det6-1, det7-5]
If
is no strong
there
move,
RESPONSES - LINK
the
move is
current
(Detail
function
Responding moves bear a reciprocal
minimal
their
definition
function
function
as a responding
as not
detail
linked
[det7m91.
for
responses.
moves,
at least
in certain
in the solicitation.
Thus,
to fulfill,
set forth
for
to soliciting
relationship
is always
ways, the prescriptions
the conversational
coded
move or
to a child
7)
There is no conversational
and therefore
a link
for
evidence
and he'll
there
a responding
move is
implicit
in its
move.
Even though conversational
function
98
is not coded for
responses,
the link
for
responses
is nonetheless
coded to cover
two special
cases:
(1) Most responses
On occasion,
respond.
moves after
speaker
interruptions).
so that
the soliciting
move to which they
however,
responses
sometimes come two or more
the solicitation
(2) Occasionally
a single
follow
(for
response
a single
instance,
The several
the response
which elicited
extends
where there
parts
it.
over several
are multiple
of the response are linked
may be considered
moves of
as a whole as well
together
as in its
parts.
99
Chapter 4
OF THE CODING SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
One important
a limited
However,
frequently
used
The coding
the
would
was placed
emphasis
establishing
preliminary
system itself.
in several
study.
tested
the
test
that
of
their
of
adding
categories
that
to
the
of
versions
Therefore,
procedures
suitable
other
or codes
testing.
need reliability
on developing
also
expectation
Such modified
research.
themselves
the
with
after
system
for
establishing
tests
These preliminary
system.
coding
was designed
for
of reliability,
tests
also
on
of the coding
led to many revisions
in the
but
were minor ones,
revisions
were reflective
as a
which were conducted
the development
In some cases,
cases revisions
were developed
reliability
and codes during
details
individual
that
The results
each detail.
this
of
reliability.
,, The procedures
result-of
scope
chapter.
use the
purposes
system
coding
of
the
coding
An extensive
system.
was conducted
reliability
of
system
would
researchers
was beyond
test
codes
in this
are reported
serve
test
of the current
the
of
reliability
reliability
and comprehensive
most
the
was establishing
system
of the development
aspect
of major
issues
and
problems that the data presented.

For instance,
coded as a separate
established
utterances.
for
originally,
detail
intelligibility
in the coding
how to code unintelligible
When a test
of reliability
100
of an utterance
system,
and criteria
utterances
was done, it
was
were
and succeeding
became clear
that,
even with
guidelines,
upon the coding

coding
of the unintelligible
These early
tests
accurately
describing
experience
with
system,
had been collected.

satisfied
upon the
test
of
that
the
for
criteria
reliability
coding
in
were recorded
Code. "
recorded
disagreements
on pedagogical
were,
on subsequent
move as a response
all
however,
all
of
define
further
the
to be used were
for
"Guidelines
and could
designed
system
codes.
details
is
For example,
coded it
and another
details
that
if
one
as a
of both coders'
between the coders.
These
the result
of the single
disagreement
therefore
be considered
"dependent
101
r
a final
"Description
of a coding
the remaining
disagreements
function
agreed
by the coders
between moves and their
then the codes for
moves would constitute
is
coders
and code.
codes have an effect
coder coded a particular
that
under the heading
manual,
to look at interrelationships
reaction,
in which it
were
described
procedures
the heading
in the development
A major difficulty
certain
under
the
coders
and codes,
developed
were
by the coders
to the context
each detail
using
manual
developed
in the coding
Coding, " for
out
the
codes
the, coding
The criteria
coda in relation
of
and once
details
that
the data that
to reflect
the various
was carried
process which
and the other

data
the
reflected
codes
of the coding
and codes.
investigator
Once the
The definitions
below.
of the details
codes were thus developed
The various
the
extensive
in the evolutionary
were influential
the development
characterized
with
aspects
other
and with
for
in order
the codes were
Together
the behaviours.
these tests
one.
were conducted
they agreed that
transcripts
but upon the
the unintelligible
of reliability
see to what extent
codersto
not so much
itself,
utterance
a move or moves following
for
disagreed,
coders regularly
"
disagreements.
It
in phases.
study
for
the coding
After
calculating
from the reliability
dependent disagreements
of coders on one particular
4.1
testing
first
of three
intelligibility--from
study,
were established.
For this
out of twenty-one
it
the tapes,
for
of what had been said was recorded.
to fill
in parts
considered
unintelligible
succeeding
utterance.
inserted
its
[T],
markings
the transcribers
or all
and simultaneous
trained
teachers
D.
a maximum
were considered
It
as a result
was
of some
Symbols were
the location
speech (S].
that
(P],
of pauses
A sample transcript
It
to
originally
or the teacher.
102
'
each syllable.
can be found in Appendix

were both
to listen
feel
to
coder
a
of utterances
to indicate
seconds in
was permissible
they became clearer
of the child
in the transcript
trespasses
all
if
for
were
unintelligible--
and forty
Where utterances
a dash was recorded
purpose,
a range of
to largely
minutes
for
conversations
so that
intelligible
the tape as many times as necessary
permissible
from a disagreement
procedures
Each tape was three
In transcribing
unintelligible,
from
resulting
OF LISTENING
tapes were selected

largely
was represented.
duration.
RELIABILITY
The three
eliminated
category.
of listening
audio, tape recordings

transcribed.
the distortion
phase of the reliability
reliability
and then
The procedure
might have resulted
that
phase,
phase were standardized
phase were coded.
calculations
the reliability
of a particular
reliability
the components of that
the components of the next
Inthe
to conduct
was thus necessary
should be noted
of the deaf and were
with
that
to the speech and language of hearing-impaired
accustomed to listening
in the classroom
children
the conversation
transcribed
to determine
order
(2)
and
children.
selected
in
were tallied
(1)
of agreement on
the extent
in the corpus,
syllables
of each of the three
were compared and differences
Then the transcripts
independently
Each transcriber
and on tape.
the total
number of
words heard by each
the actual
transcriber.
The number
for
calculated
of
amount
of
ayllablea
in
syllables
a test
of
than
rather
unintelligible
unintelligible
speech
be said
could
important
to approximate
to have
a second
seemed
that
there
the unintelligible
what
It
was expected
a deaf
It
words.
of
was therefore
listening
word--
of
the
that
given
child,
amount
a considerable
measure
an actual
constitutes
syllables--for
included
it
including
reliability.
over
contained
Therefore,
(2)
were
a large
and language.
a means of
be some disagreement
would
heard
words
actual
(1) The conversations
speech
to develop
appropriate
as well
two reasons:
unintelligible
as the
that
speech
considered
reliability.
SYLLABLE COUNT
The following
agreements
1.
on syllable
Intelligible
counted
2.
procedure was used for calculating

count:
syllables
and unintelligible
syllables
were both
as syllables.
For each utterance,

count,
the number of
the counts
if
for
the coders
that
differed
utterance
in their
syllable
were determined
as
follows:
I
a) The higher
the total
of
the
two syllable
number-, of syllables
103
counts
for
that
was considered
utterance.
to be
b) The lower count was considered

for
agreements
This
procedure
transcriber's
syllable
have resulted
in
utterances
for
true
by-utterance
high
tend
number
to cancel
each other
found
disagreements
of
each
would
procedure
because
reliability,
transcriber
a particular
totaling
simply
The latter
counts.
high
on different
and thereby
out
in
an utterance-
comparison.
The number of agreements
agreements
of
on syllable
the
for
each utterance
were totaled
number of syllables
The results
than
rather
a deceptively
might
mask the
utterance.
was chosen,
and low counts
3.
that
to be the number of
and the total
and the percentage
of
count was calculated.

for
testing
reliability
syllable
count
can be
found in Table A.
Table
RELIABILITY
OF LISTENING TO TAPES
Syllable
Count
Child
DJI
EMD
CDC
Total for
3 Children
Agreements
535
455
470
1460
574
93.27.
488
93.27.
494
95.17.
1556
93.87.
Total
7. of agreement
WORDS
The following
procedure
was used for
calculating
the agreement on
words:
1.
For'each
utterance,
the transcripts
were compared on a word-by-word

104
r
of the two transcribers
basis.
a) If
a word in one transcript
to the identical
corresponded
it
word in the second transcript,
was counted as an
agreement.
b) If
a word
in
one transcript
corresponded
was not identical,
that
second transcript
to a word
it
in
the
was counted
as a disagreement.
c)
If
a word
syllables
in
the
in
one transcript
in
the
transcript,
second
it
transcript,
second
to unintelligible
corresponded
to nothing
or
was counted
at
all
as a
disagreement.
0
The sum of
utterance
the
Thus,
utterance.
as the
the
was considered
total
the
number
transcriptions
of
total
of word
the
for
and disagreements
agreements
total
number
positions
number of
of words
in
the
each
words
in
that
can be thought
two
utterances.
Example 1:
Transcriber
Transcriber
1:
2s
The cat.
A cat.
(d) (a)
(a)
Agreements
(d)
Disagreements
Number of words
=1
-1
"2
Example 2:
(1)
Transcriber
Transcriber
1:
2t
(2)
Always
All
(d)
Number of agreements
Number of disagreements
Number of words
of
(d)
(a) M1
(d) N4
"5
105
(3)
(4)
is)
same
them
(d)
the
the
(a)
TdT
of
2.
If
both
the word position
position,
3.
had unintelligible
transcribers
Contractions
in a word
syllables
was not counted at all.
were treated
as two words.
Example:
Transcriber
Transcriber
1:
2:
There'll
There's
Number of agreements
Number of disgreements
Total number of words
4.
01
-1
-2
The number
of
agreements
utterances
in
the
percentage
of
agreement
that
requirement
an exact
match
discounts
"daba"
"dustbin,
distortions
deaf children
It
was decided
order
be considered
to permit
and could
easily
nonetheless
more objective
the speech of
upon the exact
testing
It
"policeman,
and
have been considered
to insist
case of
These differences
with
associated
the
strict.
unnecessarily
"
"cork.
and
often
in
only
"polmau"
matches as
" "or"
was calculated.
be counted
an agreement
such potential
and
represent
on words
the
all
and the
were each totaled
conversation
might
for
and number of words
matches.
match in
of listening
reliability.
The
results
-
of the reliability
testing
Table B.
106
for
in
found
be
words can
"
Table B
RELIABILITY OF LISTENING TO TAPES
Words
for
Total
DJi
EMD
CDC
3 Children
381
417
91.47.
321
363
88.4%
384
431
89.17.
1086
1211
89.77.
Child
Agreements
Total
7. of agreement
4.2
of listening
Once reliability
the conversations
conversations
moves.
influential
in establishing
transcripts
that
prevalent
included
and ones where trespassing

in this
test
syllables
guidelines
introduction
Determining
the
to
move numbers
determining
to
coding
Move Boundaries.
each coder determined
a logical
move boundaries
manual,
in
counted according
agreements
of words
each group
the
unit
of
can be found
section
talk.
in
"procedure
move
and/or
Detailed
the
for
"
Once the two coders had independently

each utterance,
was
both
were
occurred
were selected,
seemed to constitute
for
were
of reliability.
and assigned
that
behaviours
where trespassing
rarely
to be
three
and therefore
Thus, conversations
test.
of the
was determined
a wide range of turntaking
offered
this
move boundaries,
Once the conversations

boundaries
on the division
behaviour
Turntaking
of
task was to determine
The next
were standardized.
into
the transcripts
was establishedp
of agreement between coders
the percentage
chosen for
OF MOVE BOUNDARIES
RELIABILITY
assigned
and disagreements
to the following
procedure:
107
boundaries
move
between coders were
to
1.
determined
were
Move boundaries
of the conversations
recording
2.
Matching
3.
Where move boundaries
with
the aid of the tape
as well
as the transcripts.
moves were counted as agreements.

the following
differed,
were
guidelines
applied:
a) If
of
difference
the
then
moves,
total
number
of
resulted
lower
the
the higher
while
total
in
number of
the number
to be the
was considered
count
agreement,
to be the
considered
in a difference
was
count
moves.
Example:
Coder 1:
Face, oh!
(1 move)
Coder'2:
Face
Oh!
(2 moves)
(2 moves, 1 agreement)
b) If
the difference
number of moves, then,
than the number of moves.
though two moves may not match,

one disagreement
is
the number of agreements
to be one less
considered
in the
in a difference
did not result
it
is as a result
Even
of only
in move boundaries.
Example:
Coder 1:
The cat, yes.

The cat is pulling
Coder 2:
the rope.
The cat.
Yes, the cat is pulling
the rope.
(1 move)
(1 move)
(i move)
(1 move)
(2 moves, 1 agreement)
4.
The number of agreements
and the percentage
totaled,
The results
found
in Table
and the number of moves were each
of
the
testing
reliability
C.
108
r
of agreement was calculated.

for
boundaries
move
can be
Table
RELIABILITY
OF DETERMINING MOVE BOUNDARIES
Total
Child
Agreements
Total
7 of agreement
4.3
the
three
These
test
of
After
functions
129
136
94.97,
107
110
97.37.
81
84
96.47.
317
330
96.1'/.
OF PEDAGOGICAL FUNCTION
Assigning
were
for
the number of moves,
for
Detailed
to the coding
for
manual,
this
procedure
can be
in the section
assigned
to each move, the agreements were counted
pedagogical
to
two coders
Functions".
the two coders had independently
assigning
standardized.
a pedagogical
assigning
guidelines
Pedagogical
were
used by the
then
The results
ages of agreements were calculated.

test
for
move boundaries,
the procedures
to each move.
for
3 Children
including
found in the introduction

"Procedure
DHP
transcripts
standardized
function
CDC
had been established
transcripts,
reliability
EMD
RELIABILITY
Once reliability
for
functions
pedagogical
and the percent-
of the reliability
can be found in Table D.
Table D
RELIABILITY OF DETERMININGPEDAGOGICALFUNCTION
Child
Agreements
Total moves
% of agreement
EMD
CDC
DHP
Total for
3 Children
129
134
96.3%
104
106
98.1%
81
84
96.4%
314
324
96.9%
109
"
4.4
(With reliability
and for
assigning
tape
pedagogical
recordings
teachers
were
details
the
of
so that
intelligible
largely
Before
of
largely
to
proceeding
the coding
conversations
selected
a range
They did this
in order
procedures
coders were satisfied
for
that
transcripts
that
pedagogical
functions.
had'been
2.
Each coder
speaking
used by the participants
1) and turntaking
the
with
results.
the
When the
were
of the three
boundaries
move
and
was the following:
to the tape recording
proceeded
with
and guidelines
for
to become familiar
(detail
familiar
the coding
in order
Next the coders
represented.
each of the details.
the procedure
listened
and their
children
of these transcripts,
standardized
For each conversation
order
to do so,
intelligibility--from
of
the procedures
they then proceeded with
the
test
and compared their
coding
understood,
1.
three
to become thoroughly
and guidelines
In
unintelligible--was
the coding
with
to
remained
system.
of
coded a few other'conversations
coders
it
functions,
boundaries,
move
for
listening,
for
established
the
of
reliability
OF THE DETAILS
RELIABILITY
of the conversation
the pace and patterns

in that
conversation.
to code pausing
behaviours
of
(detail
characteristics
2) for
all
moves.
3.
Then the coders proceeded

details
to complete
of each move until
coded.
I,
/
110
the entire
the coding
of the other
transcript
had been
4.
for
The totals
function.
each pedagogical
each detail
each detail
for
were then tabulated
Agreements and totals
then
were
tabulated
The results
function.
of each pedagogical
of
can be found in Table E.
4.5
The reliabiity
of the system with
reliability
determining
move boundaries,
the details.
Although
reliability
made to
test
require
coding
reliability
a very
for
To do so would
designed
of all
to test
coding
reliabilty.
at least
however,
system,
7) was not difficult
with
a high
degree of reliability,
coders felt
that
the coding
of link
might
the method of recording
the codes for
link
memorized more easily.
In rechecking
their
reliability
calculations
had correctly
linked,
noted
move number.
to one that
This
code recorded
indicated
that
111
could
codes before
found that
the move number to which the current

for
there
link
for the
both
by changing
be facilitated
were made, the coders
sometimes the actual
one
in the system was discovered:
(detail
and was accomplished
was
no attempt
While the act of coding link

coders,
that
A-E.
or else a
the coding
improvement
code.
and
number of conversations
to establish
of using
functions,
was tested,
each individual
large
to listening,
in Tables
reported
each detail
conversations,
enough times
As a result
possibility
of
either
number of contrived
behaviours
of
are
regard
pedagogical
assigning
The results
to test
was a modest one, designed
conducted
study
the general
coding
CONCLUSIONS
be
the
while
they
move was
did not reflect
was some difficulty
in
Table E
RELIABILITY OF CODINGTHE DETAILS
Totals
Detail
Description
ALL
d1
All
Total
7. of
Agree-
ments
Moves
meat
343
343
335
343
343
343
338 (339)
341
335
343
343
343
98.5% (98.87. )
99.47.
97.7%
94 (95)
101
93.1%
101
99.07.
101
101
101
91.1% (95.0%)
90.17.
95.0%
Agree -
ist digit
digit
2nd
digit
3rd
-
Turntaking
3 Children
moves
-Pausing
det2
for
digit
ist
digit
2nd
digit
3rd
-
SOL
Solicitations
de t3
Response prescribed
det4
Language
det5
det6
det7
level solic.
Cognitive
function
Conversational
Link
RES
Responses
de t3
det4
det5
det6
det7
(Not coded)
Language
level
Cognitive
Correctness
Link
-22
22
21
22
-22
22
22
22
TREA
det3
det4
det5
det6
det7
Teacher reactions
Rating function
Language
level
Cognitive
function
Conversational
Link
96
96
95 (96)
89 (93)
94 (95)
99
99
99
99
99
CREA
detT
det4
det5
det6
det7
Child
()
solicited
100
92 (96)
91
96
1007.
1007.
97.77.
-1007.
1007.
95.47.
100%
97.0%
97.07.
96.07. (97.07. )
89.9% (93.97. )
94.9% (96.0%)
reactions
Rating function
121
121
1007.
Language
level
Cognitive
function
Conversational
Link
121
118 (119)
116 (118)
115 (116)
121
121
121
121
1007.
(98.37. )
97.5
95.97. (97.57. )
95.0% (95.9%)
indicates
figures
to eliminate
corrected
dependent
disagreements
112
the
effect
of
for
numbers
code
remembering the actual

which are different
for
coding
number would be more suitable
preceding
link
that
move.
the link
The third
to the preceding
digit
might
the last
in the transcript
would be informative
serve
(move 2) as well
to code that
the elements
as to the move that
in the current
than the
need to
For
move at the same time.
move and introduces
to be able
to the move which furnished
introduced
the occasional
function
below where the conversational
of a previous
might
move or one other
"teacher
in
is
the
coded as
move
sequence
of the elements
the
and the second digit
one is linked,
is
for
the speaker of the
reflect
might
a move to more than one preceding
instance,
It
digit
The first
move to which the current

designate
types of link,
function.
each pedagogical
Perhaps a three-digit
of links.
the various
some or all
solicited
"
elements.
move as being
previously
solicited
gives
of
linked
introduced
the elements
(move 1)
move.
Example:
Move 1 -T colt
2 ---c real
.
3 -T rea:
4 -C
5 -T
rea:
rea:
What's this
Pulling
Pulling
Pulling
He' pulling
one doing?
a sling.
113
t
011
t
(det6-D; current
link is
C
real
to
only
preceding
Chapter
POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS FOR ANALYSIS
The purpose of the present

coding
multidimensional
in
behaviours
body of
is
coded
important
to
this
using
learning
the
on three
process
features
coding
closely
the teacher
for
of child's
in
that
the
of
it
Nonetheless,
that
order
and child
analysis
work.
directions
researchers
full
its
can be realized.
features
related
teaching-
as having
over the
by the teacher
the control
participation,
The
of conversation.
our understanding
of the subject
in response
the
of
investigator
exercised
in
focus,
to
made
was
an attempt
system,
over the unfolding
this
of
scope
pursue,
The control
are:
teacher
A detailed
were seen by this
that
and extent
nature
the
might
implications
significant
would
some possible
tool
describe
setting.
beyond
system
developing
particular,
three
is
as a research
In
that
system
suggest
coding
potential
research
a, conversational
data
has been to design
matter,
to the nature
exercised
by
and the actions
and extent
of the
participation.
child's
The coding
teacher
and child
combination
various
system allows
with
isolated
behaviour
other
behaviours
this
of analysis
proposed here.
analysis
a large
system,
this
are suggested
number of variables
to be explored
While
variables.
coded using
that
for
both individually
frequencies
can be calculated
kind
" 114
this
directions
investigator's
of
of data
is not the primary
the possible
here reflect
and in
of occurrences
basis
the
on
of analysis
Rather,
in
mode
for
belief
"
that
of the interaction
analysis
level,
and of combinations
learning
The variables
coding
At
of behaviours
at two or more
a further
understanding
of the teaching-
of
are
level
that
at
in
this
the
levels.
degree
the various
dependent
more
of
the
of
aspects
upon other
way,
as being
characterized
in
increase
a relative
Viewed
context.
conversation
dependent
there
behaviours
the
conversational
is
in the
five
into
divided
as being
process.
included
behaviour
and child
conceptualized
level
each higher
dependence
of teacher
were
system
of language in that
and the functioning
process
at a single
and patterns
would beat facilitate
levels,
behaviours
of several
of
aspects
or
less
on context.
5.1
FEATURE 1-
CONTROL OVER THE NATURE AND EXTENT
OF THE CHILD'S PARTICIPATION
One of the features

system was the control
extent
of the child's
expressed
through
the various
discussed,
also
selected
behaviour
of teacher
as teacher
can be shown to control
pausing
child
of the coding
over the nature
Much of this
the questioning
aspects
focus
by the teacher
exercised
participation.
controlling
as well
as a primary
control
of teachers.
solicitations
and turntaking
and
is
Therefore,
will
be
behaviours,
which
participation.
CONTROL EXERCISED THROUGH SOLICITATIONS
The details
exercised
participation,
for
by teachers
which describe
solicitations,
over the nature
are primarily
the level
115
and extent
4 details:
the control
of the child's
response prescribed,
language
solicited,
behaviours
aspects
individually
of
the
Controlling
the child's
The detail
teacher
the
have
will
whether
or not
this
essence,
For example,
he will
when the teacher
reformulate,
or repeat
response,
participation
option
impact.
the
extent
role
for
has an active
response,
instead
role:
of merely
the
it.
teacher
yes or no
repeating,
that
she presents,
over the nature
and
the elements
all
the child
only
to
the single
to construct
much control
that
over the child's
the child
to a solicitation
he must construct
repeating
move,
been given.
the child
But in response
next
the child.
leaving
exercises
conversation,
his
to which
has
given
she
what has already
the child
determining
or more alternatives
response,
solicits
the
in
conversa-
or not
for
teacher
solicits
because she has determined
in responding.
in
by
exercised
the
whether
degree of control
she still
the child
given
on the
participation:
the child's
When the teacher

correct
from'two
in
some independence
or a passive
the greatest
for
necessary
have
control
initiative
the
take
describes
detail
of the child's
extent
to
the
determine
that
be dependent
or selecting
she exercises
setting;
has an even greater
as a participant
role
behaviours
an active
prescribes
various
controlling
conversational
codes
prescribed
child's
he will
or not
answers,
the
the opportunity
or whether
In
over
the
these
role
response
describes
It
tion.
of
in
role
behaviours
the various
of
in
participation
Each of
solicited.
an important
plays
child's
interaction
the
level
and cognitive
that
elements
that
has but one

of this
single
type,
correct
have already
been
by the teacher.
On the other
hand, at times
the teacher
116
solicits
the child
to
a response
construct
a range
within
child
to construct
these
cases,
the
teacher
some degree,
but
does
so by letting
responding.
The child
for
options
for
responsibility
the
role
a response
the
of
and that
an active
Controlling
or a passive
the
language
in, conversation,
response
participation
of
certain
also
the child
the child
of the child's
control
of language
language
that
the
Both the
participation.
by means of their
over the expressive
general
over
control
exercises
and the detail
exercise
solicited
solicitations,
the child
in conversation.
contributes
For example,
linguistic
If
not provided
if
a teacher
the actual
clues
minimal
solicits
language
the
or selecting,
repeating
because the teacher
the language necessary
all
with
the teacher
important
solicits
contribution-is
the child
response.
child
impact on
whether
namely,
linguistic
the ways in which teachers,
provided
between
established
has a powerful
aspects
describe
child's
is
role
prescribed
the
child.
behaviour
the teacher
to
among various
some extent
a balance
the
In
participation
choose
to
shares
of
of the child's
and extent
detail-of
the child
soliciting
Aside from controlling
nature
child's
component of the conversation,
an affective
role
the
controls
the
or solicits
has been specified.
no range
the conversation;
Thus, a teacher's
plays
where
still
teacher
responses,
of
for
has
the child's
has
though
she
a yes or a no, even
of the response,
has
given
she
about what language would be appropriate
the
as a
response.
When the
response,
teacher
the teacher
solicits
exercises
construction
control
117
of
over
the
single
the child's
correct
linguistic
by requiring
participation
of
the
by the teacher
gives
of
the
but
response,.
not
the
teacher
from
the
language
the
provides
point
the
of
that
to use to express
words
what
exactly
specified,
to participate
only
a response
to construct
no range
opportunity
The child
determines
limited
is
responses
acceptable
asks the child
or with
greatest
language.
of
the language
to provide
one).
responses
of
child
of
view
range
when the teacher
a range
the
the
to a single
Further,
within
the child
(although
response
himself
response.
When the teacher
is
know how much and what kind
Thus,
the teacher
phrase only,
of language
verb or a verb phrase,

will
participation
a verb phrase.
It
be very different
and extent
similar
Controlling
instead
language all
of the child's
over the nature

The details
of response
if
overall
a teacher
if
linguistic
solicits
most often
a minimum of a verb or
the teacher
she solicits,
varies
the
to
opposed
as
participation
certain
affective
the teacher
participation,
and extent
the time.
cognitive
to controlling
acceptable.
That
or a noun or noun
A child's
be different
also
the child
or she can solicit
of soliciting
of the language
the child's
In addition
aspects
will
lets
a minimum of a noun or a noun phrase,
or a sentence.
a noun or a noun phrase,
soliciting
is minimally
or a, verb or a verb phrase only,
minimum of a yes or a no only,
nature
but also
a yes or a no only,
can solicit
know who
the child
is coded as the language solicited.
language
acceptable
minimally
she not only
solicits,
the language of the response,
to provide
lets
of the child's
prescribed
cognitive
and cognitive
118
linguistic
and
exercises
control
participation.
level
solicited
describe
the ways in which

level
cognitive
the teacher's
the child's
of
When the teacher
Thus,
the teacher
specifically
in her solicitation,
a response
the child's
cognitive
by
participation
for
to respond with
the child
she
she requires.
participation
of cognitive
can control
soliciting
the
controls
response.
prescribes
can communicate the extent
solicitation
example,
an
inference.
On the
other
hand,
or by only
specifying
thereby
determine
the
cognitive
played
by the
the
is
level
to
child
who is
his
response
of
This
seems an important
point,
that
children
respond'at
generally
the
the
of
such studies,
and see Bellack
As in the case for
if
different
a teacher
that
solicits
or instead
specify
the cognitive
level.
will
teacher
varies
expectations
rather
and extent
than using
will
participation
inferences
she solicits,
level
"
has shown
research
that
for
was
a review
of
the nature
language participation,
of soliciting
the nature
active
1966, pp. 125-126. )
instead
It
to
or completely.
partially
prior
the
to specify
1974, pp. 268-269,
cognitive
is
child
of
An increasingly
the cognitive
et al.,
most often
level
the opportunity
either
the child's
of the child's
and extent
the
that
response.
given
without
the cognitive
child
given
(See Dunkin and Biddle,
solicited.
to solicit
may choose
specifying
communicating
level
cognitive
teacher
partially
response,
role
the
119
of information
the child
of soliciting
be different
of the cognitive
solicitations
most of the time.
units
be very
with
if
again
the
participation
similar
cognitive
to
Application
can be seen that
It
how the
teacher's
linguistic,
these
us to study
other.
time
to see if
by particular
then
could
frequency
response
of
look
the
at
Based on this
linguistic
that
teachers
himself
affective
in
make in
of
aspects
a more passive,
more active,
way she uses
each of
these
details
are
three
have
soliciting
the
role.
is
It
in
role
The teacher
details
120
in
of
with
associated
level,
and
data,
of
is
it
the child's
be very
much influenced
further
hypothesized
a significant
the
relation
whether
control
by
that
impact
on
he sees
or
conversation,
can exert
individually,
considered
the
soliciting
development:
child's
dependent
independent
when the
will
soliciting.
of
their
and extent
participation
patterns
choices
certain
over
of
preliminary
the nature
time
and cognitive
teacher's
researcher's
detail
the
and cognitive
in
display
variation
to analyse
is
code
each
language
of
teachers
patterns
codes
some
this
and that
ask,
be worthwhile
how often
codes
be con-
should
prescriptive.
individual
the
the details
of
they
thus
would
of
occurrence
hypothesized
the
It
styles
has noted in her work that
questions
of
prescribed,
behaviour.
the
types
to study
particular
or
These
they
over
characterized
are
behaviours.
less
to each
be studied
could
as to whether
pp. 54-55)
be advantageous.
might
to
the
vary
be analysed
the
of
and enables
relation
teaching
of
soliciting
of
(1964,
Taba at al.
teachers
of
more prescriptive
generally
teachers
or models
styles
constellations
or models
sidered
the behaviour
various
and in
of
aspects
participation
individually
both
the study
certain
controls
and cognitive
aspects
instance,
For
behaviour
soliciting
affective,
child's
system facilitates
the coding
in
by the
and even more control

to each other.
CONTROL EXERCISED THROUGHPAUSING AND TURNTAKING

Two additional
(level
2).
by pausing,
merely
interrupted.
teacher
in
behaviour.
and child
as models for
A first
which
further
T-sol:
C rea:
T sol:
Here a teacher
react
the
the child's
the
moves.
follow
participation
said,
reactions,
following
is
the
of
child's
example:
[no pause]
immediately
followed
by teacher
is no pause between
the child
wanted to respond or
by leaving
the teacher,
has limited
behaviour
the nature
for
space
no
and extent
of
data suggests
teacher
pauses
and extent
Thus, even if
used to encourage or discourage

that
of
here
suggested
are
and turntaking
simultaneously--there
to respond or react,
Preliminary
details
learned
be
to
much
together
the
nature
solicitation
to what the teacher
the child
relation
What's the man called?

[S] [S] What is he?
moves occurring
the two teacher
as
to other
undoubtedly
may function
can be seen in
DST
Move 23
24
25
to speak when
together.
way in which
may control
participation
is
There
they
participation
investigation.
possible
a teacher
and child
and in
child's
to study how these
investigators
at these two details
Two ways in
a child's
these behaviours
system records
to each other
the
and turntaking
pausing
or by continuing
enabling
relation
over
control
can control
by interrupting,
variables,
from looking
of
A teacher
The coding
independent
function
teacher
can be found in the teacher's
participation
behaviour
for
vehicles
solicitations
following
in
the
as
pauses or lack
that
child
but
participation,
also
example:
121
of them might
not only
in moves following
be
in moves
teacher
DST
Move 11
12
T rea:
C rea:
Yes, the water's

[Sj Yes.
in
13
T sol:
[S] What's
to happen?
who leaves
A teacher
move may facilitate

teacher
if
the
It
be useful
use that
to
serve
relation
to
emphasized
that
behaviours
these
in different
circumstances.
of any given
what circumstances
Further
the various
behaviours
A second possible
behaviour
of
a teacher
utterances
children
of
talk
hear
will
not
this
investigator
the
deaf
following
prevent
children.
in
bursts.
all
that
children
example,
the child
If
the
suggests
and the
the
from
p.
a teacher
has
child
that
this
teachers
teacher's
completing
122
the
0
under
reveal
and turntaking
pauses
of
too
often
the
quickly,
studied
frequently
here.
In
teacher
data
The preliminary
happens
utterance
the
during
87) has shown that
two trespassing
his
might
are
to say.
being
determines
and extent
reacts
also
intrinsic
be
by
used to advantage.
may
the nature
Rowe (1974b,
to have
that
way in which the pausing

may control
should
different-functions
research
can be seen when there
participation
child's
be judged
behaviour.
It
child.
the context
behaviours
use these
each may serve
is
It
the
extending
or
the
of
cannot
for
effects,
or negative
positive
effect
own moves and those
their
on
stay
behaviours
and turntaking
when teachers
and to study
participation,
child's
or doesn't
limiting
of
(for
infrequently.
only
pausing
function
child.
child
unintelligibly
the
study
the
by the
elaboration
use pauses
to a previous
reaction
moves by the
previous
to ramble
tends
a child
would
teachers
in
to discourage
may deliberately
topic)
of
her
after
a wait-time
elaboration
who wishes
instance,
going
[no pause]
the bucket.
between
the
(15
16)
and
moves
normally:
of
EBK
Move 13
Tell
T sol:
14
15
T sol:
What [move 15 trespasses]
C rea:
--
[pause;
It
is
times
at
reflective
a language
facilitator
in
communication
is
so prominently
In
a child's
does a speaker's
to end their
allowing
his
behaviour
the two speakers
the pausing
to play?
is controlled
has been demonstrated.
of variability
of control
When do teachers
do
they not?
and when
behaviour
of teachers?
and extent
of children's
and turntaking
may be that
may be exercised
and what
123
roles
behaviour
behaviour
even greater
by teachers
How
the future
affect
in a child's
It
to
Such
in a conversation,
by the pausing
to
behaviour
What variables
the nature
of
are many
time on the communicative
over
and turntaking
A few ways in which
teachers
turn
of the two speakers
learn
there
investigation.
such as:
of
part
time.
and turntaking
to be interrupted
turn
is the impact of such behaviour
participation
here,
these warrant
trespass
on the
be fruitful
might
is
system
coding
as a listening
use pausing
participation;
a child's
influence
regard,
could help answer questions
investigations
turntaking
it
of
the development
of
aspect
but
as a wait-time
ways in which teachers
control
this
the
listening
that
to the two ways illustrated
In addition
other
belief
an important
children.
a pause not
permit
details
in
listen
to
The inclusion
the child.
of
behaviour
and turntaking
or unwillingness
a willingness
investigator's
this
move 17 trespasses]
pausing
utterances
value--the
of
define
of
and turntaking
pausing
then
a teacher's
that
expressive
thereby
to--and
[pause]
What, who is he?

Yes.
T sol:
T rea:
is possible
then move 16 trespasses]
[pause]
--[pause;
-----
16
17
[no pause]
me about the picture
degrees
when their
of
and turntaking
pausing
as the response
5.2
with
behaviours,
other
language prescribed,
prescribed,
by their
prescribed
interact
strategies
such
level
and cognitive
solicitations.
CONTROLOVERTHE UNFOLDING
FEATURE2-
OF THE SUBJECT MATTER
A second feature
of
the coding
unfolding
system
the
of
This
feature
the
teacher's
of teacher
was the
subject
by the
exercised
during
behaviour
for
plan
control
matter,
teacher
of
selected
control
the
the way in which
course
teacher
the
of
the
subject
the
over
conversation.
some important
reveals
focus
as a primary
of
aspects
matter
to be
is
conveyed to the child.

The behaviours
that
level
the
being
at
understanding
5 of
of
them as part
of
can be considered
data
preliminary
usually
revealed
segment
(see
discussion
of
these
describe
behaviours
is
by a larger
3,
the
section
such sequence
that
However,
the
of
3.5
by the
exercised
for
related
a full
to say,
by considering
be achieved
two solicitations.
control
group
is
That
The smallest
moves.
one made up of
show that
chapter
of
can only
as
are conceptualized
framework.
theoretical
a sequence
feature
this
moves,
teacher
is
to as a
referred
and further
a definition
segments).
UNFOLDING OF SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN A SEGMENT
Different
control
sequences of solicitations
used by teachers.
reflect
Two common strategies
124
different
for
kinds
the unfolding
of
of
the subject
matter
proceeded from general
matter
of subject
of subject
unfolding
some cases,
a single
in others,
a teacher
requires.
In still
strategy
is used throughout
In
and
the conversation,
as the situation
subject
of unfolding
no such strategy
cases,
other
the
to general.
or another
uses one strategy
the unfolding
(2)
and
to specific,
from specific
proceeded
matter
(1)
data:
appeared in the preliminary
is
matter
discernible.
The following
of the subject
from a segment where the unfolding

to general
specific
Example 1Move 56
9
13
and then to specific

DST (specific
Child
T
T
T
T
Sol
sol
sol
Sol
(1):
(2):
(3):
(4):
In the following
The pattern
perceived.
2-
Example
Move 18
23
32
.,., 35
37
39
The subject
formulating
of unfolding
(1)
T Sol:
T Sol:
(2) What has he got?

(3) Tell me about this?
T Sol:
T Sol:
T Sol:
(5) Tell me about him. [not

(6) Have a look at him.
(7) Who is he?
matter
by either
can only be formulated

designated
can be
seems more random.
matter
subject
T sol:
Who is
he?
within
"him"
same
a segment can be better
sentence"
summarizes the elements

introduced
[specific]
[specific]
EBK (no pattern)
Child
"topic
a
[specific]
[specific]
[specific]
[general]
of these patterns
T Sol: (4) What's that?
33
to specific)
to general
neither
from
again:
it fall?
Where will
be wet?
Who will
example,
proceeds
matter
Look at that!
What is it?
Where's the water?
T Sol (5):
T sol (6):
16,
21
taken
is an example of a sequence of solicitations
for
of content
the teacher
each segment.
or the child.
once the boundaries
and the whole segment studied.
125
understood
A topic
of a segment that
This
1
18
as
by
sentence
have been
topic
sentence
been
have
of the segment
It
is possible
to say, for
instance,
"There's
In
that
the
a bucket
2,
example
sentence
topic
first
someone in
how various
introduced,
the
segment
is
the
teacher's
for
plan
the
the
example
to happen
topic
is:
topic
"
something.
got
sentences
"
it.
to
Its
a segment.
and he's
picture
of
elements
in
going
form
two solicitations
"There's
By observing
the
of
and something
water
of
the
is:
sentence
are
becomes clearer.
segment
UNFOLDING OF SUBJECT MATTER ACROSS SEGMENTS

To understand
necessary
segment,
look
not
but
also
how it
facilitates
and their
unfolding
the
the
corresponding
1-
Segment
of
have
teachers
different
kinds
subject
matter
division
topic
transcripts
of
across
subject
the
sentences
segments
from
following
been formulated.
of
and over
of
the
exercise
conversations
can be found
into
two
of
the way trains
conversations
the
The example
teachers
control
system
example,
transcripts
context
The coding
the
is
within
unfolds
The larger
segments.
In
it
matter,
matter
subject
investigation.
a series
The full
organized.
children,
the
of
the
must be considered.
together
for
plan
unfolds
of
for
how the
at
only
kind
this
illustrates
Child
fit
sentences
children
teacher's
to
of how segments
topic
the
of
of
segments,
in Appendix
over
thought
the
are
these'
and the
D.
DST:
look
We're going to talk about the picture
have
at
a
so
(moves 1-4]
it.
2- There's a bucket of water which will
fall
on the
be wet. [moves 5-271
policeman and he'll
he's
is
The
talking
the
very
policeman
to
and
cats,
-3 (moves
28-37]
angry.
fall
4- The cat will
the
will
the
pull
rope and
policeman
[moves
38-53]
over.
5- The cat with the catapult
is going to hit the
(moves
54-66]
bottom
it
be
policeman's
and
will
sore.
1-
126
2-
Child
EBK:
We're going to talk about the picture,
so have a good
(moves 4-121
look at it.
There's
me about the pictures
you can tell
something
There is someone in the picture
and he's got something.
[moves 13 -311
1-
Segment
2-
You can tell me about this other thing. It is something

[moves
32-351
fall.
it
and
will
He is someone.
You can tell me who this person is.
[moves 36-401
It is
There is another thing you can tell me about:
[moves
41-451
something.
345-
The teacher
the unfolding
who controls
1 has chosen in her topics
Child
and to focus
in each succeeding
The teacher
the policeman.
for
matter
Child
of the subject
to discuss
on naming objects
and people
is
what
about
important
and the cause and effect
These two children,
are being
on quite
attentions
that,
differing
'over
approaches
taught
different
time,
teacher
teachers
using
the possibility
preferably
on being able
about
ones in varying
differing'strategies,
at least
it
exposed to these
these topic
one characteristic
127
differently.
sentences
are
by
each
used
emphasis
a variety
educational
might
is hypothe-
It
situations
However, by studying
of
and
energies
who are consistently
the different
to
direction
the
under
of the world.
from which
conclusions
that
their
would come to perceive
drawn.
be
cannot
and children,
to focus
aspects
children
Because the transcripts

taken are brief,
the focus
hand, emphasis is placed
names of objects.
teachers,
sized
in the picture
2, on the other
For Child
their
different.
be
to
very
appear
is
in
in these segments
in the picture
between the characters
relationships
identify
action
to
of the subject
the picture.
1, 'the
is doing
the unfolding
who controls
The messages conveyed to each child
For Child
matter
in the picture
the action
segment on what each cat
2 has chosen to focus
for
of teachers
settings
be feasible
typical
with
to explore
of some deaf
children--their
attention
of situations--is
aspect
and to concrete
used in
to some of the strategies
related
them.
teaching
Several
alternatives
A teacher
separate,
tying
her final
segment.
be to
them together
A
relate
be
to
appear
in
at the end of her conversation,
only
third
organizing
each segment to the
may connect
segments that
one, or she might present
preceding
for
to teachers
are available
segments of conversations.
would
details
to unimportant
for
pattern
to
segment
each subsequent
subject
organizing
the
first
matter
in
segment
the
conversation.
This discussion
matter
subject
of, how teachers
indicates
maps, as suggested
1964, pp. 62-64).

and the other
of the content,
of the cognitive
involved
processes
of the
must have two cognitive
by Taba (Tabe et al.,
maps must be of the logic

psychology
control
the teacher
that
the unfolding
One of the
of the
in learning
the
content.
On the basis
about
conclusions
exercised
by this
that
the desirability
investigator
conversations
a picture
with
that
teaching
and learning,
conversation,
between a particular
the roles
teacher
thought
in many
is possible
to
conveyed
are
in the teacher's
as expressed
instance,
it
is
between the process and the product
and the functions
Suppose, for
and children,
emerge of the messages that
children
of conversation,
However, it
matter.
of teachers
to draw
types of control
when these sequences are studied
a variety
might
is not possible
of particular
over the subject
about the relationship
nature
conversation,
of a-single
by teachers
it
that
the child
that
over
and child,
128
view of the
and the teacher
language
serves
the course
play
in
in conversation.
of many conversations
the subject
matter
unfolds
in
from general
either
Over time,
of the two.
combination
of language
conversation
to the and point.
no specific
that
in the unfolding
for
of a
point
then
matter,
of subject
serves
conversation
For
in the child's
the use of language may not,
purpose alone,
the message that
between two people.
contact
social
or a
is on a continual
there
gets over time may be that
as an opportunity
be a necessity.
may get
however,
If,
progression
the message the child

only
the child
to general,
to get one from the beginning
is
the function
basis
or from specific
to specific
view,
'
INTERACTION WITH OTHER BEHAVIOURS

The teacher
interest
and cognitive
to analyse
level
cognitive
with
the
relationships
matter
way the teacher

the subject
the subject
matter.
It
details
of certain
subject
language and/or
can we learn
promote or inhibit
other
language
For
segments.
unfolding
of
segments that
of
foster
and
ways of
instance,
is
matter
cognitive
what patterns
or language
cognitive
behaviours
be of
would
to alternate
prescribed
investigation
suppose a teacher
of the subject
prescribed,
expresses
influence
or interfere
with
the
how
unfolds.
To give an example,
the unfolding
course,
and across
or how various
organizes
matter
of
the
of
pattern
matter
in children
behaviours
are very
within
a preponderance
subject
of unfolding
subject
matter
the child.
and response
Only by further
behaviours.
of
for
expectation
one particular
may be that
associated
unfolding
by the
the
Each solicitation,
solicited
subject
organizing
it
controls
she uses.
solicitations
language
the
rarely
It
matter,
may be that
129
much control
because
and
of solicitations
the child
gives
exercises
an opportunity
such a teacher
fosters
over
that
to affect
in the
a lack
child
interest
of
children
are
sometimes
activity
for
long
very
subject
which
in which
learning
the
behaviour
these
behaviours
would
tend
of
deaf
responsible
in
the hypothesis
than
certain
the
skills
together
the
in
of
the
that
presence
influence
Over
time,
This
the children.
interactive
deafness
of
that
styles
term.
short
the way
with
participates
child
may become characteristics
children--more
The way in
on how various
of, children
to support
for
the
to an
to attend
unable
be analysed
could
Deaf
hand.
at
distractible.
easily
some information
to yield
unfolding,
and as being
to which
topic
as being
characterized
extent
the
to
attending
unfolds
matter
and the
in
experiences
do or do not
they
and characteristics
se--are
per
acquire.
As a further
child
receives
role
child's
child
a'response
specified--apparently
proceed
select
giving
of the subject
unfolding
immediately
Thus, a teacher
the child
Then, without
this
again,
the teacher
the subject
child
matter.
evaluates
the combination
appropriate
worthwhile
she really
for
It
the
that,
130
in this
and extent
regard
It
to
case
of
to determining
long
term,
the
over
and determines
combinations
she may
The child
from the teacher
him to take in the conversation.
the
the child
about the nature
she uses,
the various
for
time asking
wants from him with
the messages he gets
to analyse
the
regarding
pausing,
presents.
is hypothesized
of behaviours
the
times
may solicit
responsibility
gets a mixed message from the teacher

the participation
at
where no range of response has been
matter.
to solicit
from alternatives
show that
messages from the teacher
contradictory
to construct
data
preliminary
example,
as a result
what action
the
of
is
would be
of behaviours
teachers
"
they represent
control
behaviours
looking
while
also at the combinations
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE TEACHER
FEATURE 3-
PARTICIPATION
IN RESPONSE TO THE CHILD'S
feature
A third
was the actions

of, the
extent
teacher
the
in
teacher
two functions.
First,
he can, use to
of
his
to continue
or
to alter
of
the
response
to
the nature
These actions
participation.
correctness
focus
as a primary
by the
child's
which
child,
selected
taken
can serve
of
in children.
they elicit
5.3
to the degrees and types of
them iccording
use over time and to rate
evaluate
participation,
the
they
and degree
type
feedback
can provide
they
of
control
to
and
the
allow
and
by the
taken
the appropriateness
and second,
system
coding
teacher
she previously
used.
TEACHER REACTIONS
One of the main functions

providing,
feedback.
(2) elaborating
or repeating
provides
discontinuing
unfolding
of the subject
elements
or by introducing
unsolicited
131
elements.
(3) rating
or
The
participation.
by continuing
trespass
by introducing
move;
the child,
She can provide
move.
matter
participation;
of the child's
about a child
her trespassed
the child's
acknowledging
some aspect
feedback
participation
or clarifying
or negatively,
is
reactions
the child's
of the child's
on aspects
positively
qualifying
teacher
Feedback about
by (1) correcting
can be provided
the child
served by teacher
all
feedback
or
about the
the solicited
A teacher
can also
feedback
provide
language
the
cognitive
of her
aspects
of
linguistic,
and extent
nature
Some of
the
the
about
of
child
about
the child's
participation.
described
a teacher
child's
move.
"that's
"
good,
or by giving
child
it
and whether
degree
is
only
indirect.
If
his
teacher's
whether
to
about,
of his
reaction
to the child,
it
direct
the
however,
other
or gives
by inference
only
the
perhaps,
or whether,
or indirect,
usually
performance.
approved
does provide
does not require
the information.
she had for
elaborates,
as a model
move
for
the
child
of
move.
say, what cognitive
the teacher
contribution
serve
the
feedback,
this
can determine
child
or
of his
that
expectations
was acceptable,
appropriate
evaluation
information
I-
the
yes or no,
or disapproved
repeats,
the
of
own solicitation,
Most of
teacher
in these reactions
the teacher
receive
general
was intended
reaction
In addition,
teacher's
the
to her
approved
participation.
participation
more corrector
general
the
information,
unsolicited
whether
of
his
answer
teacher
the
fulfilled
and type
the
the
information
or correctness
by saying
reacts
child
about
direct
provides
above
level
same time
the
at
the
about
the
information
appropriateness
general
if
Thus,
knows whether
while
and affective
the
feedback
move provides
reacting
matter,
subject
the
of
aspects
by the cognitive
participation
a teacher
by
participation
She can provide
cognitive,
feedback
the
child's
and by what
reaction
child's
Thus,
own reaction.
conveying
to
the
the
of
she repeats.
any,
information
with
in her
she uses
move,
child's
about
if
language
the
It
is
the feedback
It
does not give him specific
or linguistic
or disapproved
various
types
the child
the teacher
132
at best only
the child
gives
provided
aspects
of.
of his
While a
of general
information
to do more than passively

who is
the active
by
a
"carrying"
for
responsibility
is a passive
role
teacher
This message is especially
one.
further.
by reacting
This expectation
has understood
The preliminary
lengths
time
of
passivity
the teacher
child
with
information
to
her
of
if
the
provides
by providing
himself
move or about
data
indicate
after
their
know more about
how these
participation.
It
is
of
longer
duration
in
interaction
(see
has been shown that
followed
of
follow
his
said,
by pauses--prescribe
the child's
reactions
own opinions
may well
in"
may also
allow
was said previously.
It
in
1,
provide
the
5.1).
in some other
to
have
the
moves.
If
to participate
1.5,
Rowe).
solicitations
and extent
pauses that
In contrast,
for
the child
to state
has
been
way on what
Pauses after
to seek clarification
133
various
child's
probably
child
section
opportunities
These actions
the
degree the nature
are not prescriptive.

the child
to
soliciting
most solicitations--even
(see section
for
own.
be valuable
relation
after
what he
his
of
pause
would
such pauses
control
about
additional
encourage
to a great
take
either
do often
occur
chapter
her reaction.
to
teacher,
moves.
that
or to elaborate
because reactions
reactions
that
responses
the
that
pauses
It
for
teacher
with
pauses after
teachers
hypothesized
as pauses
associated
function
pauses
then
actively
herself
"takes
passively
an opportunity
reacting
same potential
the
the
no alternative
child
something
that
effect
so,
if
clear
leaves
she
partner"--the
of child
can be altered
Such a pause
his
has said.
what the teacher
reactions
on the
the conversation
continues
In such a case,
but to be a "silent
the child
One effect
to convey to him that
is
then,
and then immediately
reacts
and the one who has the
the conversation.
type of feedback,
of this
child
the director,
the initiator,
participant,
of the child
teacher
of something
in turn
provide
information
valuable
of the subject
understanding
child's
about the nature
to the teacher
and about other
matter
of the
and extent
objectives
of the teacher.
The importance
of auch child
process
cannot be overstated.
correct
responses
of the students.
"there
by the teacher
unconsciously
grasp of the material

children
dependable
(It
If
for
self-initiated
learning
means of evaluating
must be emphasized in this

or lack of pausing--or
pausing
For one child,
different
with
gibly
or to be distracted
communicative
as in all
action
that
others,
taken by the teacher-teacher
or negative
a teacher
reaction
on the subject
may
or to
matter
may want to increase
child
competencies
from the subject.
allow
to ramble unintelli-
The teacher
her pauses in an effort
choose to minimize
attention
may be a more
child
may well
the
reactions
That same pause might
the number of such pauses.
greatly
child's
of this
of their
then offering
positive
to elaborate
The teacher
pose aquestion.
independent
the case,
context,
a pause after
him the opportunity
provide
strong
with
in the children.
any other
cannot be viewed as an inherently

behaviour.
is
that
always used
almost
the children
p. 113),
that
on the part
understanding
are techniques,
(1975,
taught.
opportunities
reflect
which provide
to the answer required"
clues
indicate
and Sinclair
Coulthard
do not necessarily
Rather,
to the teaching-learning
reactions
to; a single
topic.
of this
to encourage
child
the
TEACHERSOLICITATIONS
While
offer
teacher
reactions
the opportunity
conversation,
neither
for
may provide
a child
to
is directive.
take
feedback,
a more active
Neither
134
and pauses may
provides
role
in
the child
the
with
clear
understanding
him.
At
doing
kinds
the
at
and type
instance,
the
of teacher
his
of
that
the
the
teacher
the
teacher
By careful
indicate
the child
of these.
if
that
followed
the child
upon or
part
imitate
to
the
that
in
or
child's
the teacher
feedback
If
if
on subject
in the situation
to participate
communicate more explicitly
(4)
actively
reacting
in
135
to several
she might
on language,
Or, she might
do the
to convey to the child
functions
reacting
moves.
First,
the conversation.
to the child
did
to the role
(5)
or
matter,
to
at hand.
moves, which perform

from actual
(1)
applies
she wants to focus
she wishes
can
to what the child
to model her language.
both are important
significantly
For
next.
child
in the conversation,
again.
by the former
These soliciting
differ
the
the
previously,
did cognitively,
she wants to focus
she might ask the child

latter
implying
(2)
move,
to what the child
the same content
solicit
ask the
indirect
this
whether
took as a participant
Thus,
as to
move was in whole
of a solicitation,
of the child's
(3)
linguistically,
about
wants
did
child
instead
thereby
child
acceptable.
construction
matter
the
child
might
provides,
to the child
the subject
preceding
hand, can
to elaborate
the child
solicit
the
to
teacher
the
upon something
move was not
previous
his
one that
direction
and clear
participation
might
that
Or,
feedback
indirect
both
child
teacher
implying
acceptable.
model
that
child
on the other
solicitations,
participation
more specifically
thereby.
the
tells
shorter
a relatively
would
from
desired.
same time
of
acceptability
focus
pause
like
Certain
provide
longer
desirable,
less
the, teacher
participation
a relatively
is
is
participation
degree
of
the most,
something
the
what aspects
then,
they require
Second, they
of his
is focusing
the teacher
participation
reacting
moves, solicitations
feedback
to the child
Furthermore,
on.
are not concerned with

the general
about
unlike
some
providing
direct
of the child's
acceptability
participation.
Thus,
are a variety
to the child's
response
proceed
there
with
a reacting
move followed
offer
feedback
child
to participate
It
directly
either
moves is
control
with
participation.
or
actively
to
In
the
light
participation,
can be seen also
basis
the way she is
of the child's
or change it.
the coding
teacher's
subsequent
teacher
soliciting
the kind
the child
linguistic
system,
participation,
the
by the teacher
teacher
action--are-necessary
might be doing.
If
certain
to the
for
move, the teacher
the
subsequent
has the opportunity
and cognitive
as well
contribution
136
teacher
at level
to
5 of
moves--a
and the
what the
action
is a
to change or maintain
over'the
general
as over aspects
to it.
to
on the
it,
follows
to understand
she has been exercising
in the conversation,
child's
are described
that
the teacher's
teacher's
child's
because a minimum sequence of three

action
the
of
she wants to maintain
whether
a child's
the
of
and to consider,
control
solicitation,
of control
reaction
of
function
discussion,
current
as opportunities
exercising
Such actions
of
may
conversation.
and degree
and extent
as a type
which-serve
the
a major
type
the
of
she takes
and may require

in
that
the
the nature
solicitations,
evaluate
1)
to establish
regard
indirectly,
or passively
(Feature
followed
move
The actions
move.
example,
a reacting
with
a reacting
or with
move,
for
can,
move,
a soliciting
by a soliciting
was shown above
soliciting
The teacher
with
move,
by a soliciting
followed
by a pause
of actions
participation.
can take in
the teacher
role
of his
She also has the
of
"
in
the
way
which the subject
or change
to maintain
opportunity
unfolds.
illustrate
An example will
Move
5T
6T
7C
8T
9T
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
aol:
Sol:
rest
rea:
aol:
C rea:
T rea:
C rea:
T aol:
C rea:
T rea:
T Sol:
C rea:
T Sol:
C-reat
T Sol:
C rea:
T Sol:
C rea:
T aol:
C rea:
T rea:
the point:
Look at that!
What is it?
Water.
Water.
Where's
the water?
in the bucket.
Yes, the water's
Yes.
They'll
go round.
it fall?
Where will
fall
--.
-Where?
Where.
Who'll be wet?
Who'll be wet?
What's
the man called?
What is he?
Policeman.
A policeman,
yes.
In moves 5 and 6, the teacher

aspects
all
over
consist
a unit
of
less
specific
range
" up in
the air,
of
time
must give
only
to give
the
the child
bucket")
child
seeks
a minimum of
can respond
or an inference
next
to
of
the
to
string,
In
a noun.
To the
respond
("in
("swinging
the
above
137
the
child:
the
the
child
bucket,
"
policeman's
the
she widens
"Where's
information
the
teacher
the
child
this
in move 7 he needed
whereas
addition,
of
and
giving
solicitation,
a unit
a noun phrase,
(9),
" "over
from
phrase,
the
correctly,
responds
which
a noun
by giving
a noun or
of
the
that
constructing
and then
solicitation
more language
a minimum
cognitively.
child
within
responses
" "attached
She also
head").
in her
prescriptive
minimum
When the
information.
She asks
(5)
looking
deal of control
a great
exercises
participation.
of
(6)--a
response
correct
single
for
the child's
participation
child's
is
of
matter
("in
policeman").
the
the
the
options
"
water?
As it
again
responds
a range of correct
she
responses,
full
inference
a
sentence.
and
of
a minimum
an
-----------does not respond in any acceptable way, the teacher
correct
response,
cognitive
level
information
way (17),
a second
time.
(19),
the
time
(21),
inappropriately
information
again
information
instead
(24)
follows
level
response
This
levels
time
that
matter
data show that
or maintain
their
a unit
of
and at this
the desired
can alter
independently
or maintain
participation.
in
of the others
participation
her
and the
to meet the needs of the situation.
teachers
levels
same
of her solicitations.
the moves of only
example comprises
(23),
in eliciting
a teacher
tune the degree of child
responds
of the solicitation
reaction
can be varied
again,
of
aspects of the child's
over various
of the subject
the
level
A repetition
the most prescribed
same
to respond
(22)
cognitive
successful
the
once again
solicits
the
at
to respond
same solicitation
The child
unintelligible
is finally
(18)
continues
makes the
of an inference.
of control
to finely
preliminary
this
fails
again
solicits
child
teacher
example illustrates
Each aspect
this
but
to at least
of control
unfolding
teacher
but at the
hp
rase,
child
teacher
When the
and the
the child's
the teacher
the
(20).
way
a different
in
When the
the single
to construct
the child
a minimum of a noun
inference.
of
inappropriately
this
(16) by asking
using
in any acceptable
alter
Next,
to her own solicitation.
a response within
her control
tightens
While
The
is unintelligible.
time requiring
When the child
order
11),
(13)
solicits
(10),
move
the child's
(in
in turn
teacher,
this
happens,
a single
have similar
of control
a conversation.
138
across
segment,
opportunities
segments,
the
to
throughout
RESEARCH QUESTIONS DERIVING FROM PRELIMINARY
5.4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
EFFECT OF TEACHER BEHAVIOUR ON CHILD PARTICIPATION
In the previous
in response
to the participation
and then solicits,
Through her actions,
she provides
moves by soliciting
this
strong
pattern
the
in
message
continues
the
is
the
by soliciting
takes
in response
child,
term,
expected
to function
in
this
at a varier
if
forms.
to the child's
very different
It
She does
and
the actions
she
is hypothesized
the
to
messages
of
set
on the child's
long
the
over
in
participation
by such a teacher
from those conveyed by a teacher
139
the unfolding
levels
are used consistently
The messages transmitted
teacher
responses.
She thus varies
these messages have an effect
the conversation.
in
of cognitive
a particular
these behaviours
the
the segment.
of
participation.
transmits
This
able.
because
to construct
child
child
as an active
participation
course
suggested
the
gives
and reinforced
the
is
it
next
to construct
child
way he is
whatever
active
of linguistic
(1) such a teacher

(2)
and
repeatedly
throughout
responses
using
behaviour
child's
requires
variety
a
that
is
the child's
the
data,
to the
of his
directs
the teacher
confirmed,
matter,
The; teacher
this
teacher
the
of feedback
aspects
the preliminary
conversation
to enlist
kinds
a way as to require
of
child
supported,
subject
such
basis
of
message:
participant
of
in
On the
a response.
that
various
At the same time,
participation.
solicits.
sometimes she only
of, the different
about the acceptability
of actions
Sometimes she reacts,
of the child.
sometimes she reacts
child
takes a variety
the teacher
example,
will
frequently
who most
be
yes or no responses
solicits
she provides,
alternatives
most of the time,

more or less
investigations
that
who intersperse
teachers
answers from their
contributions
did not address

behaviours
the cause and effect
and the child
is also
intended
The coding
to be used for
EFFECT OF TEACHER BEHAVIOUR ON CHILD'S
is further
leads,
actions
over time,
It
the children.
rigid
hypothesized
is often
behaviour
in their
claimed
reflect
and spoken to.
Howarth,
and
these studies
between the teacher

is
system
system of this
such purposes.
FLEXIBILITY
such variety
in the teacher's
flexibility
and adaptibility
to a certain
that
and in their
haps such characteristics

are cared for
that
comments
with
Wood's own coding
being used to look at such issues.

investigator
in two separate
While
relationship
participation,
in a
and more elaborated
1982, p. 305; Wood and Wood, in press).
Howarth,
It
questions
(Wood, Wood, Griffiths,
children
of information
participation
Wood et al have demonstrated
way.
both more spontaneous
received
to the child's
and who reacts
static
nouns and units
who solicits
from
to select
or who asks a child
hearing-impaired
thinking
a rigidity
As Tabs, et al.
(Levine,
in
are
children
Per-
1976).
in the way the children

(1964,
p. 55) has stated:
The impact of teaching lies not alone in its single acts, but in
the
the manner in which these acts are combined into a pattern;
lifting;
the
of focusing,
particular
combination
extending,
and
for
length of time spent on a particular
in
preparation
operation
"seeking"
"giving"
level;
how
functions
the
are
another
of
and
is
distributed;
information
in
intake
the
the
way
and
which
of
the
transforming,
alternated
with processing,
synthesizing
and
information.
In the education
the lack
presented
of deaf children,
of variations
the impact
of combinations
of teaching
of teaching
acts
may lie
that
in
are
to the children.
140
PERCEPTION OF SELF
EFFECT OF TEACHER BEHAVIOUR ON CHILD'S
is further
It
hypothesized
experiences
in
the
teaching-learning
influential
in
the
development
of
his
perceptions
see himself
variety
of
himself
in
levels
is
conversation
functions-of
language
change
is
his
with
the
is
role
one instance,
he is
the
of
outcome
by his
to reinforce,
of
the
in
the
the-
his
the
of
view
perceptions
communicative
to help
functioning
maintain
or
instance,
other
like
a spectator
whose
mere presence,
an already
expected
largely
functioning
process,
in
The child's
part
exchange;
on a
participation
may grow from
and communication
may come to
participation
valued.
nor
child's
or he may come to see
and valued,
own contributions
the overall
outside
only
the
whose regular
where
expected
neither
In
role:
process,
role,
the
The child
his
and are
cumulative
of
conversation.
expected
a more passive
is
of his
both
are
situation
participant,
as an active
of a child's
and maintenance
in
own role
the effects
that
he
performance.
EFFECT OF TEACHER'S EXPECTATIONS ON CHILD PARTICIPATION
Various
expectations
with
studies
with
These behaviours,
expectations
students
(a) wait
helping
these
less
in turn,
(by providing
serve
it
instance,
clues
or asking
higher
follow-up
or
use differ-
(Brophy and Good,

the teacher's
when teachers
has been shown that
them to answer questions;
141
/
teachers
to reinforce
for
Thus,
be low achievers,
time for
is associated
as being potentially
two groups of students
of these students.
will
of teacher
One such expectation
The case has been made that
behaviours
1970).
the influence
of children
perception
lower achievers.
think
behaviour.
on child
a teacher's
ential
have reported
(b) persist
questions)
teachers
less
in
when the
children
fail
accurate
and less
believed
to be high
to do what the teacher
low achievers
achievers;
investigator
about the potential
associate
of this
A during
heard in school
were
expressions
totally
B teachers
school
children,
school
absent
teachers
hearing
contrast,
teaching
children.
described
It
school
A teachers
deaf children,
The higher
in relation
A and
of
their
and compared to other

it
was impossible
normal hearing,
of their
whereas school
to note that
to hire
between
most school
and that
children,
such teachers.
In
tended to have spent most of their
often
with
achievement
little
levels
to those of school
experience
of school
A'children
with
as compared
children
of hearing
deaf
to
distinguishing
without
is significant
preferred
Similar
When school
performances
that
been teachers
of the school
B.
others
do
were commonly
research.
children
in general
children
had previously
the principal
the
the performance
and deaf children.
B teachers
school
expressed
those with
rate
those of other
from
hearing
A teachers
would'only
from other
while
potential,
a deaf child"
for
to rate
were asked
compare the children-to
of the
some teachers
that
suggest
research
the course of this
compared to other
children
with
Both the experience
Phrases such as "he does well
not.
of
is found also
of children
a low achievement
with
the performance
of the deaf and data collected
as a teacher
in the course
to students
(Good, 1981, p. 416).
of deaf children.
deafness
interrupt
less
them with
provide
than they provide
and (d)
more frequently
among teachers
teachers
feedback
detailed
Such expectations
wants
(c)
careers
hearing
B children
are
in chapter
2, The
Population.
The statement
of an attitude
above made by school
among them that
A teachers
the most important

142
seemed expressive
aspect
of the
in their
children
as teachers
of these children
deafness,
especially
teachers,
on the other
in their
individual
general
of skills
with
aspect
of the children
They seemed to
to be facilitators
role
of the children,
For school
they were children.
and collective
role
special
known to be associated
hand, the most important
and development
growth
their
of language development.
skills
care seemed to be that
view their
Thus,
was to emphasize the teaching
deficits
to tha. particular
related
deafness.
care was their
of which
of the
language
development was but one part.

For school A teachers,
their
in relation
own roles
teachers
were ever striving
namely,
to get the children
relationship
teachers
differently:
taught
or if
the expressive
In their
teaching,
continuous
feedback
of an expressive
were capable
school
only
receptive
language
consisted
of patterns
A teachers
kind
of understanding
School B
to be active
were considered
babbling.
children
spoken words and
sentences.
of the children
skills
they had sett
more emphasis on the process
they placed
they demonstrated
even if
participants
The
produced words would
to produce
Thus, children
of communication.
the children.
individual
correctly
the children
enable
an
with
to produce
and about
seemed to create
the language goals
toward
speech sounds in the hope that

eventually
about the children
to the children
in their
tension
underlying
beliefs
their
skills
of
seemed to need more
to reassure
them that
the
them at all.
a
The beliefs
B teachers,
Betting,
teaching-learning
more relaxed
assumption
of school
that
development
communication
in the course
of, the children,

would come.
in contrast,
perhaps becauac of an
of facilitating
language
the overall
as the primary
School B teachers
143
seemed to create
placed
growth and
means of
greater
emphasis
cess of development,
on the process
between short-term
teachers,
there
succeed.
This
that
This
turntaking
pervaded
teachers
to handle
In school
but
organization
of
teacher.
and may have led school
situation
of
amounts
breaking
of
experiences
A teaching
experience
repetition
of words.
generally
the child
to command more than his
fleeting
might
only
experiences,
and followed
school
through
to
teacher
to
a particular
a passive
to requests
simple
by the
made of
B children
by the teacher.
or by the child,
or
memorization
exposed to patterns
have been of sufficient

The individual
the child's
144
as the
only
interest
setting
experiences,
of the child's
language.
were exposed to rich
made so because they were initiated
often
by the teacher
the
child
was rarely
them to meet the limitations

hand,
of
became a recipient,
attention.
A was used to concretize
On the other
the
expose
required
that
simplifying
to
in such a setting
Thus,
differently.
determined
for
and school
as well
experiences
was a vehicle
or
point
the
were usually
of language or to content
in school
A teachers
was to respond appropriately
These requests
the children
the children
with
for
the
person whose role
initiated
to remain
uncertain
were exposed to many kinds
initiative
the
The child
situation.
interactions
their
a particular
illustrate
for
and expectations
A, the children
experiences,
child
the
frequent
and the
would
B teachers
by large
hampered
and language
attitudes
the'-schools
varied
the children
in
even
case
Among these
rules.
These general
him.
was the
communication
speech
that
seemed to enable school
confidence
unintelligible
development.
seemed to be a confidence
from
resulted
to the relationship
more attention
and long-term
gains
relaxed.
relatively
with
The experiences,
and
by the
whether
were used to stimulate
the
child's
curiosity
about his
enlarge
his
by assimilating
teacher
seemed to be helping
world
to the situation
foster
seemed to
in
Conversation
the
both
B was used
school
them by stretching
and to organize
of
of
increasing
These descriptions
provide
here is designed
specific
that
may be manifestations
beliefs.
underlying
child's
fulfilling
affects
teacher
or other
the
to meet
The coding
a description
of the
interactions
of such
and
from
arising
how
be
a
to
study
used
can
the teacher's
in subsequent
expectations
interactions
with
that
child
children.
Good (1980,
pp.
101-105)
influence
significant
Barnes,
it
experiences
child's
deaf children.
expectations
or not fulfilling
behaviour
and expressively.
of some of the different
with
are characteristic
Furthermore,
child
language
to provide
of particular
by
world.
an overview
system presented
behaviours
his
of
about and interacting
the
the
to enhance
ways of thinking
The teacher
receptively
the child's
complexity
interest
showing
attentively.
atention
language
not only bringing
to say, but also
span in
The
At the same
process.
involved
this
things
an increasing
patterns
emphasizing
that
had to say by listening
in what others
needs
in the communicative
it.
important
as an
to view himself
the child
interesting
into
the new experiences
seemed to learn
the child
time,
environment
and participant
contributor
and to encourage him to
conversation
that
on whether
Satterly,
Gutfreund,
provides
roles
and Wells
the child
evidence
that
students
are maintained
(1983,
experiences
have a
or changed.
"If
82)
argue
p.
is facilitative
of his
the
or her
0
further
child
it
development,
is so as a result
and adult
contribute.
To illustrate,
if
of interaction
to which both
"
a teacher
thinks
145
a deaf child
is impaired
in
his
enough time to answer before

in turn,
may learn
this
kind,
the teacher's
distractible,
with
In contrast,
basis,
continuing
aspect
original
linguistic
input
on the part
language development
that
by Wells
statement
recent
is a communicative
the data from the current

this
communicative
include
must
process
but what the listener

be researched,
coding
process
(1983)
et al.
For it
thatit
it
of the
of the listening
is not so much
are important
children
that
underscores
In order
moves and the soliciting

is these aspects
146
it
That
of what the speaker

to allow
does,
such questions
expanded the
moves that
of the conversation
of
is upon
depends.
system has greatly
coding
the
analysis
that
would seem clear
consideration
The
as communication.
language development
is doing.
an important
From the preliminary
process.
that
that
the
reinforce
will
the quality
process
study,
learns
then
who
the quality
needs to be taught
not only
the current
of reacting
reactions.
and in fact
to the conversational
contributers
process
but also
listening
attentive
A child
is not only
is his
not only
may be shown that
It
to, the child,
of the teacher,
that
and by speaking
of language development
that
a child
on a
to respond and
a child
but also
expectations.
as being
to answer will,
a child
in conversation.
both by listening
to participate
to
span.
teaches
and valued,
inability
the child's
time for
appropriate
behaviour
is. an appropriate
teacher's
who expects
of
enough exposures
is characterized
attention
such a teacher
expected
given
about
and the child
allow
Over time,
participation
In time,
expectation
a teacher
The child,
to what is going on is not
attention
only a short
the child
may not give
the answer herself.
providing
elsewhere.
respond is reinforced,
react.
his
that
so he focuses
valued,
the teacher
to answer a question,
ability
serve as
that
reveal
to
to which
the extent
facilitator
child's
balances
the teacher
her complementary
listener
language and attentive
of expressive
to communicate and to be attentive
abilities
of
roles
to the
to communication.
BROADER'IMPLICATIONS=
Behaviours
.
in
occurring
behaviours,
the
sequences
sequences,
levels
five
understanding
the
of
what
and as having
patterns.
and patterns,
using
coding
messages
another
we can provide
appropriate
functioning
of. these children,
the relationship
different
in general.
investigators
associated
for
with
the level
critical
of
the cognitive,
of deaf children
under
the years have pointed
over
as being at least
linguistic
hearing-impaired
about
in development
interaction
of verbal
interaction
of"interpersonal
responsible
Levine,
and the role
Several
and children.
learning
(2)
and
as a means of
between the development
conditions
so that
is an especially
there
should
of one individual
to both teachers
(1) as a means of lifting
such study:
of
patterns
term and in the long term,
in particular
and social
persons
(Getz,
of
the means of
Such analysis
how the behaviour
skills
framework
us with
by certain
these
of
the conceptual
may provide
conveyed
both in the short
deaf children
Regarding
influence
are
better
enable us to understand
need for
system,
An analysis
and how these messages are conveyed.
behaviour,
affects
over time can be seen as
and teachers
of children
to the
partly
deficiencies
1953, pp. 164-65=
1960, pp. 51-52).
Recently,
several
perhaps deafness-in
condition,
interpersonal
but
that
researchers
have come forward
impose such a handicapping
and of itself
does not
environmental
influences--in
influences--play
a role
147
to say that
(Liben,
particular,
1978; Ottem,
1980; Wood
and Wood, in press).

in press)
studies
by asking;
"Are there
losses
what factors
auch different
A and school
in many additional
study
(1) The various

differences,
of behaviour
patterns
handicapping
interaction
that
partly
of their
caregivers
is known.
is not
about deaf children,

behaviours
cognitive
of the altered
them once the
handicapping
the primary
itself,
verbally
by
exhibited
communication
towards
the deafness
hypotheses:
related
as a result
Thus,
the
but the impaired

view and
emerge from the teachers'

and affect
and
attitudes
the cognitive,
linguistic,
and
in these children.
(3) These attitudes,

transmitted
to facilitate
person.
(2) Teacher behaviours
affective
in order
and observation
is caused by the changes in the way others
the handicapped
beliefs
system,
of social
at least
condition
of deafness
condition
treat
develop
so,
based on data
as on teaching
as well
patterns
If
study do represent
speech and language deficits,
and deviant
deaf children
coding
and the following
of the above question
similar
with
from others?
in this
was designed
schools,
family.
and on his
the differences?
B children
two schools
who are amongst
youngsters
differently
The present
groups.
in those
collected
for
are responsible
of
One such study might begin
some hearing-impaired
who are developing
The school
teachers,
need to be undertaken.
Additional
hearing
and his
on the deaf child
influences
of the quality
examination
a serious
between the deaf child
the most significant
(Wood and Wood,
are but a few studies
there
have included
that
interaction
Yet,
beliefs,
and through
together,
so that
potential
of the children
there
and behaviours
behaviour
among caregivers
comes t be a generally
throughout
148
of caregivers
a given
"shared
institution.
are
0
who work
view"
of the
(Such a
by teachers
shared view was expressed
by this
administered
questionnaires
) This
hold
those who may not initially
come to influence
personnel
and residential
researcher.
in
shared view may

view.
a similar
(4) Certain
become apparent
that
similarities
throughout
is individual
Isimple
using
talking
(e. g.,
commonalities
are also
style.
from teacher
which the children
in the child
term,
The long-term
individual
The research
interactions.
describing
learning
child
I
oll'/1
teacher
to class
and
to
in the behaviours
about
for
the general
they elicit
population.
communicative
competencies
interactions
of children
and their
Analysis
at least
of the interactions
cognitive,
of teacher
begin with
and affective
behaviours
149
by children
caregivers.
a study
of those
to facilitate
interactions
those
develops.
the child
developed
coding
If
the child.
to hearing-impaired
here in relation
described
and analysing
of linguistic,
convey a
these messages and the behaviours
The present
situation.
behaviours
the competencies
behaviour.
child
elicits
and beliefs
proposed here must therefore
and indices
move from class
behaviour
teacher
consistent
has significance
begin with
responses
become
strategies
is a consistency
may come to define
(6) The process
indices
term,
continuously,
reinforced
children
children
message of expectations
consistent
teaching
or
are exposed.
(5) In the short

Over the longer
to construct
children
Over time,
there
to teacher,
in phrases and sentences,
talking
Thus, although
there
or techniques,
styles
soliciting
words;
or to answer yes or no).

teaching
teaching
about their
may have much
Though teachers
a school.
behaviour
of the teacher
in aspects
in the teaching-
might
generate
competencies
based on the three
in the
features
of
behaviour
teacher
studies
further
might
beliefs,
A greater
performance.
to that
The present
impaired
and their
for
aspects
difficulties
arising
to focus
deliberately
consequently
the general
and
coding
easier
relationship
coding
three
to study
the
us
reasons:
on the basis
setting
is also
It
research
Hearing-impaired
children
(1) The communication
of deafness
cause some teachers
of language and communication.
may be exaggerated
than those of teachers
and are
in schools
serving
cognitive,
can be found amongst these children.
to describe
in competencies
of
between hearing-
(2) A wide range of linguistic,
competencies
inter-
verbal
systems and other
of conversation.
behaviours
teacher
coding
in Great Britain.
on the teaching
system attempts
variances
The coding
a means of bringing
in a dyadic
from the handicap
population.
affective
impact of human
was developed
It
teachers
for
study
for
a system
developed
on various
Thus, certain
on child
is essential.
to provide
and children.
based on previously
were selected
is
in conversations
children
studies
effect
SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS
research
of teachers
data collected
between
understanding.
5.5
actions
of-the
of children
here endeavours
system presented
closer
understanding
in the development
interaction
and their
Such
chapter.
and more
and expectations,
behaviours
of teacher
of this
of the relationship
our understanding
'behaviours,
attitudes,
specifically
at, the beginning
described
that
suggested
wide range.
the investigation
between language and cognitive

150
functioning
Also,
The
the great
of a possible
and the
development
of communicative
difficulties
associated
normally
accepted
been suggested
that
aspects
that
in
previously
system.
present
of previous
special
emphasis on reviewing
In addition
tools
additional
research
description
assigning
functions
are soliciting,
is coded with
for
solicitations
that
assigned
Thus,
who
and also
Also included
units
reacting,
a pedagogical
called
prescribed,
of
the present
reliability
to each move.
are response
with
the coding
testing
establishing
to seven categories,
in
the
the development
of the reliability
functions
coded
process,
tool,
research
into
have not
in
hare
to
process.
interaction.
for
to each
are
systems
researchers
a model for
responding,
to being
respect
to study
the conversation
pedagogical
among these
which
presented
system such as this.
dividing
In addition
details
verbal
the results
coding
for
procedures
is
as a useful
of the procedures
multidimensional
for
also
system
in relation
coding
the work of other
to provide
to study
includes
system
schemes in order
to serving
system is intended
the coding
studies
context
coding
aspects
conversation
of
multidimensional
The coding
individual
have been difficult
or that
features
certain
previously,
been studied
may have escaped notice,
been coded
developed
system various
may not have previously
addition,
of such situations.
the interrelationships
to investigate
has
It
is much to be learned
there
from an examination
coding
where the
actuations
cannot be assumed.
which have been studied
researchers
the
researchers
in a single
enables
study.
create
by other
of conversation
In
deafness
of communication
By combining
other,
competence.
rules
interaction
about verbal
that
with
(3) The communicative
called
for
are
moves, and
The pedagogical
and structuring.
function,
details.
language
each move
The
solicited,
151
0
level
cognitive
details
the
for
responses
response
teacher
the
of
reaction,
and turntaking
pausing
unintelligible
divided
into
system.
coding
the
degree
aspects
various
dependent
levels,
to form
the
of
aspects
other
aspects
dependence
of
or
of
less
features
dependent
exercised,
child's
participation,
in response
The various
terms
cussed
of
these
from
those
over
reaction,
conversa-
moves the details

for
procedures
of
coding
have been
behaviour
framework
is
to
assigned
Viewed
the
of
in
increase
a relative
level
that
in
this
as being
characterized
features
focus
matter,
on
the
way,
more
features,
perspective.
of
that
suggested
these three
on the linguistic,
the nature
over
exercised
the
and extent
and the
coded
A preliminary
152
system
the
of the
the
over
of the child's
coding
were:
by the teacher
and the actions
and
cognitive,
features
The three
setting
because
system
of the coding
and extent
components
their
for
on context.
the control
three
of
moves have been developed.
there
of children.
to the nature
level
reaction,
conceptual
investigator
of the subject
unfolding
are
by the teacher
control
the
context.
have an effect
competencies
affective
the
behaviours
the
interrelated
might well
of
the
conversational
by this
research
related
of
as the primary
were selected
function
and child
level
conversation
Three closely
scope
of
The
details
The
in
and surrounding
At each higher
cognitive
In addition,
of teacher
five
response,
pedagogical
coded.
are
and link.
expanded
level
For all
utterances
The various
rating
cognitive
and link.
function,
response.
greatly
are
the
of
the
of
systems,
function,
tional
are
reactions,
earlier
language
language
and correctness
and child
in
found
conversational
solicited,
participation.
described
were
were dis-
interactions
analysis
in
of
some of
the
coded data
extent
the
a child's
of
language
their
of
sequences
tion
the
and trains
in
teachers
to continue,
teachers
It
and their
codes,
The potential
in this
long-term
research
exposure
by studying
might
and degree
by
exercised
in
was reflected
as in
as well
the
in conversaby
taken
partici-
child's
the
and allowed
they
control
of
to determine
be possible
behaviours
of behaviours
and patterns
It
behaviours.
teacher
and a variety
of conversation,
and the role
of the child
is hypothesized
the messages
the functions
he gets
that
from
the
over
setting
has been suggested

of teachers,
about
that
153
of
a picteachers'
language
in the communicative
is an example).
the long term the child
combinations
of a
of the child's
effects
emerge of the messages conveyed to children
(of which
behaviours
of teacher
to be seen as the result
many conversations
in conversation,
some
competencies.
are not
to those
of the various
the interactions
but as the cumulative
views of the nature
It
type
of the combination
effects
conversation,
process
as through
use to evaluate
participation,
might
of children's
aspects
and certain
suggested
it
that
between teacher
relationships
serves
of
could
by studying
that
was suggested
details
ture
and
used.
previously
single
the
or alter
prescribe,
The actions
his
of
and correctness
they
of utterances
and extent
the child
that
and
interaction,
functions
the nature
feedback
appropriateness
that
to
response
of
matter
can be described.
thought
of
provided
pation
segments
the
the
the nature
The control
subject
of
over
as well
solicit,
the
Thus,
segments.
they
responses
behaviour.
unfolding
moves within
of
sequences
by the
levels
and turntaking
over
control
exercise
participation
and cognitive
pausing
teachers
teachers
that
suggests
behaviours
evaluates
teachers
use,
and determines
what
conversation.
He,
teacher
through
the
these
messages
in
participant
set
beliefs
of
turn,
his
the
conversation,
subsequent
effect
behaviours
and combinations
was suggested
understanding
between
place
population
used in
other
situations
because
young
children
including
Aside from its

coding
teachers
evaluate
with
system might
at all
potential
for
the coding
In
where
other
to each
functions
define
for
of
and
The'
of
a set
of
for
define
which
them a
each of
beliefs
development
the
the
fixed
teacher
the
child
the
immature
patterns
to
tool,
parents
and weakness of their

research
our theoretical
dependence of the linguistic,
of
those
it
new teachers,
and also with
cognitive
process.
154
is also
system
coding
takes
and in
teachers,
might
is
interaction
caregiver-child
our
that
process
and their
addition,
be used with
The current
by the
system might facilitate
children
use as a research
advancing
the
speech--similar
the strengths
children.
that
have
levels,
time,
as he matures.
as well.
unintelligible
Over
relation
the
these
to
role
and interactions.
and which
hearing-impaired
general
in
roles
behaviours
of
he can attain
competencies
increased
process
is
in
creating
brings
then
as a teacher,
competencies
It
of
internalized
and about
conversations
this
are
the
his
of
conversation.
their
about
in
the
eventually
conversation,
of
cumulative
her
and child
Each participant
to
expectations
nature
him to play
understanding
in
participation
sent
the
his
conveys
by teacher
it.
in
language
in
for
appropriate
and expectations
about
other,
is
role
the
be
studied,
communication-deaf
of
children.
was suggested
with
that
the
experienced
as a concrete
communicative
discussed
means to
behaviour
in view of its
understanding
of the inter-
and affective
components in
REFERENCES
In B. O. Smith
The language of teaching.
Aechner, M.J. M. (1961).
),
(Eds.
in
Education.
Concepts
H.
Language
R.
Ennis
and
and
Rand McNally and Co.
in
in
(1963).
interaction
M. J. M.
The analysis
Aschner,
of verbal
h
),
(ed.
Research
Theory
In
A.
A.
Bellack
and
classroom.
College
Press.
Teaching.
Teachers
the
(1971).
in twelve
D.
A study of language interaction
Barnes,
In D. Barnes,
lessons
in the first
term of secondary
education.
(eds.
),
Language,
H.
Rosen
the Learner
J. Britton,
and
and
the School
(rev.
).
ed.
Penguin Books, Ltd.
(1983).
G.
Wells.
D. Satterly,
S., M. Gutfreund,
Barnes,
and
Characteristics
children's
speech which predict
of adult
J. of Child Language Development,
language development.
10,
65-84.
R. T. Hyman, and F. L. Smith, Jr..
H. Kliebard,
Teachers College
The Language of the Classroom.
A.,
Bellack,
(1966).
Press.
Interruptions
Bennett, A. (1981).
and the Interpretation
Conversation.
Discourse Processes, 4,177-188.
Berninger,
G.,
allocation,
discourse.
402.
Bloom,
(1981).
Garvey.
Questions
C.
and
of turns
and timing
construction
Research,
J. of Psycholinguistic
of
and the
in child
10,375-
E. J. Furst,
W. H. Hill,
B., M. D. Engelhart,
and D. R. Krathwohl
The
(1956).
(eds. ).
Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives:
Handbook
Coals.
Classification
vie
ni
of Educational
David McKay.
Domain.
Brophy, J. and Good, T. (1970).

In A.
dyadic interaction).
An Anthology
for Behaviour:
Continued (1970
Instruments
Better Schools, Philadelphia.
Brophy-Good system (teacher-child

Simon and E. Boyer (Eds. ), Mirrors
of Classroom Observation
for
Research
A.
Vol
supplement).
(1981).
Brophy, J.
School Journal,
effectively.
On praising
81,269-278.
The Elementary_
(1977).
Buckler,
Interaction
J.
of the discourse of
analysis
to
its relationship
teachers of hearing impaired children:
development.
Ed. D dissertation,
Teachers College,
cognitive
Columbia University.
155
(1975).
Teachers
Coulthard,
R. M., and J. McH. Sinclair.
The English
Used a
of Discourse:
Oxford University
Press.
Dore,
(1979).
J.
language development.
Conversation
and preschool
),
(Eds.
In P. Fletcher
M.
Carman
Language Acquisition:
and
in First
Studies
Language Acquisition.
Cambridge University
Press.
(1974).
Duncan, S. and G. Hiederehe.
turn to speak.
J. of Experimental
234-247.
Dunn,
Towards An Analysis
and Pupils.
(1959).
L. M.
Peabody Picture
American Guidance Service,
Inc.,
On signalling
that it's
your
10,
Social Psychology,
Vocabulary
Teat, Form Be
Minnesota.
Circle
Pines,
Flanders, N. (1963).
In A. A.
in the classroom.
Teacher influence
Bellack (Ed. ), Theory and Research in Teaching.
Teachers
Press.
-College
N.
Flanders,
Publishing
(1970).
Analyzing
Co. Inc.
Teacher
Behavior.
Addison-Wesley
Fox,
(1980).
D.
Child discourse
interactions
and the language
hearing
impaired
Ed. D. dissertation,
preschool
children.
Teachers College,
Columbia University.
Getz,
S. (1953).
Thomas.
Environment
and the Deaf Child.
(1980).
Good, T.
Classroom expectations:
interactions.
(Ed. ),
In J. McMillan
School Learning.
Academic Press.
Good,
(1980). " Teacher expectations

T.
decade of research.
Educational
Gordon, T.
Library
(1975).
Inc.
Parent
C.
teacher-pupil
The School Psychology
of
perceptions:
and student
Leadership,
Feb., 415-422.
Effectiveness
E. (1982).
Discourse
Hjelmquist,
6,25-38.
J. of Pragmatics,
Charles
of
Training.
processes
New American
in dyadic
communication.
(1959).
Hughes, M.
The Assessment
A
of the Quality
of Teaching:
Research Report.
U. S. Office
Project.
Cooperative
of Education
University
of Utah Press.
(1976).
Keenan, E. O. and B. Schieffelin.
Topic as a discourse
a study of topic in the conversations
notion:
and
of children
(Ed.
),
In
C.
Li
Subject and Tic.
Academic Press.
adults.
Levine, E. (1960).
The Psychology
University
Press.
of Deafness.
- --
156
Columbia
In R. Frisina
Levine, E. (1976).
Psychological
contributions.
(Ed. ), A bicentennial
impairment:
hearing
trends
on
monograph
in the USA. The Volta Review, 78, No. 4,23-33.
Liben,
L. (Ed. ).
Perspectives.
(1978).
Deaf Children:
Academic Press.
Developmental
in children's
Michaela, S. (1983).
The role of adult assistance
Truax
In
R.
discourse
literate
and
strategies.
acquisition
of
for
J. Shultz (Eds. ),
Learning to communicates implications
The Volta Review,, 85, No. 5,72-86.
the hearing-impaired.
Mahler,
of
J.
Its Types
in dialogue
E. G. (1975).
Studies
and discourse.
discourse
by and sustained
initiated
through questioning.
4,99-121.
Research,
of Psycholinguistic
III.
E. G. (1978).
Studies in dialogue and discourse.
Mishler,
in interrogative
Utterance structure
sequences.
and function
Research, 7,279-305.
(1973).
Donaldson's
G. W. G.
Montgomery,
D, E, G. Personal
communication.
linguistic
(1982).
Moores, D.
and Practices
Co.
Principles,
Psychology,
Houghton Mifflin
153-162.
Educating
the Deaf:
(Second Edition),
pp.
An analysis
Ottern, E. (1980).
of cognitive
Annals
D=,
American
the
subjects.
of
-.
tests
series:
studies with
5,564-575.
A,
deaf
in hearing-impaired
Perman, B. Z. (1978).
Reading attainment
children:
a comparison of higher and lower achievers.
11,227-235.
Communication Disorders,
J. of
Participant
S. U. (1972).
Philips,
and communicative
structures
. Warm Springs children
in community and classroom.
competence:
In C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, and D. Hymes (Eds. ), Functions of
Teachers College Press.
Language in the Classroom.
Mother-child
Prorok,, E. M. S. (1980).
a
verbal interchange:
descriptive
verbal behavior.
study of young children's
Research, 9, No. 5,451-471.
Psycholinguistic
(1969).
J.
Reynell
Reynell,
Publishing
Co. Ltd.
V. P. and S. J.
Robinson,
Volume I. Routledge
Rowe, H. B. (1974a).
of instruction.
Developmental
(1972).
Rackstraw.
and Kegan Paul.
Language Scales.
A Question
J. of
N. F. E. R.
of Answers.
Pausing phenomenal Influence

on the quality
Research, 3,203-224.
157
Rowe, M. B. (1974b).
Wait-time
and rewards as instructional
their influence
variables:
on language, logic,
and fate
J. of Research in Science
controls
part one--wait-time.
Teaching, 11,81-99.
Rowe, H. B. (1974c).
Relation of wait-time
and rewards to the
development of language, logic,
and fate control:
part two-J. of Research in Science Teaching, 11,291-308.
rewards.
(1974).
Sacks, H., E. Schlegoff,
G.
Jefferson.
and
for the organization
systematics
of turn-taking
Language, 50, No. 4,696-735.
Schonelle
Test
(1956).
F. J.
The Schonell
A and B (R3 and Rk).
Oliver
A simplest
for conversation.
Reading Tests:
and Boyd Ltd.
Silent
Readin
Smith,
(1961).
B. O.
A concept of teaching.
In B. O. Smith and R. H.
Ennis (Eds. ), Language and Concepts in Education.
Rand
McNally and Co.
Taba,
H., S. Levine,
and F. Elzey.
School Children.
Cooperative
San Francisco
State College.
Taba,
(1966).
H.
in Elementary
San Francisco
(1964).
Research
Teaching
Strategies
School Children.
State College.
in Elementary
Thinking
Project
No. 1574,
Functioning
and Cognitive
No. 2404,
Cooperative
Project
Wechsler, D. (1949).
Manual: Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for
Children.
The Psychological
Corporation,
New York.
Distributed
in U. K. by N. F. E. R. Co. Ltd.,
1955, and The
Scottish
Council for Research in Education,
1965.
G.
(1973).
Wells,
language:
An
to code experience
through
Revised version
to the study of language acquisition.
approach
Feb. 1973.
of a paper given at the London School of Economics,
ERIC Document ED081-286.
Wells,
G. (1976).
What makes for successful
language development?
Paper presented at the Psychology of Language Conference,
Stirling,
Scotland,
June 1976. ERIC Document ED133-046.
Learning
Wood, D., L. McMahon, and Y. Cranstoun.

Under Fives.
Grant McIntyre Ltd.
(1980).
(1980). ' A developmental

Wood, D. J.
psychologist
teachers--at
the education of deaf children.
2, No. 1,61-83.
Analysis,
Working with
looks--with
Educational
(1981).
Wood, D. J.
The Structure
Teachers
between
Conversations
of
Conference for Heads of
of the Deaf and Their Children.
Schools and Services for Hearing Impaired Children--University
of Manchester, Dept. of Audiology and Education of the Deaf.
158
Howard.
I.
C.
Howard,
S.
P.
Griffiths,
J.
H.
A.
J.,
A.
Wood,
and
Wood, D.
610(1982).
to
year-old
The structure
with
of conversations
23,
J. of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
deaf children.
295-308.
(in press).
Aspects of the linguistic
Wood, D. J.
Br. J. of Audiology.
deaf children.
competence of
An experimental
Wood, H. A. and D. J. Wood. (in press).
investigation
of five styles of teacher conversation
Child
J.
language of hearing-impaired
of
children.
and Psychiatry.
159
on the
Psychology
AppendixA
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS,AND CONVENTIONS
Symbol
Meaning
SOL
CRES
Pertains
Pertains
to teacher solicitations
to child responses
TREA
CREA
Pertains
Pertains
to teacher
reactions
to child
reactions
T
C
T
C
A
A
A
A
sol
res
res.
rea
move
move
move
move
that
that
that
that
is
is
is
is
a
a
a
a
teacher solicitation
child response
teacher reaction
child reaction
T str
Pedmx
A move that structures

A move which has an ambiguous
det
Detail
(TI
(P]
(S)
Location of a trespass
Location of a pause
Beginning of simultaneous
speech
Unintelligible
syllables
(each. dash represents
one syllable)
--*
The particular
of the current
Imo-
This move is
is
move in an example that

discussion
linked
function
pedagogical
to the indicated
illustrative
move
earlier
be
SOL det6-1 and similar
to
expressions
are
read according
"
1.
for
6
is
"Detail
a
solicitation
coded as a
pattern:
DHP and similar
of three upper case letters
combinations
the name of a child in the study.
represent
to this
each
Because the majority

in this research were
of teachers participating
"she"
In order to
is used to refer to all teachers.
term
the
women,
to using
each child is referred
avoid ambiguity of pronoun referents
in
the
boys
the pronoun "he, " although both girls
and
participated
research.
160.
Appendix
SUMMARYOF THE CODING SYSTEM
(A detailed
description
guidelines
procedures,
Volume 2: The Coding
definitions,
including
the
coding system,
of
in
found
be
for coding,
can
and examples,
Manual. )
ALL MOVES
ALL MOVES
PAUSES
DETAIL 1:
is
digit
Each
coded
three-digit
number.
The coding
a
pauses
the
describes
current
of
characteristic
pausing
one
and
separately
follows:
digit
is
for
The
as
code
each
meaning of each
move.
is
for
1.1
Detail
(1st
digit)
OF THE MOVE
BEGINNING
THE
AT
PAUSE
VERBAI.
-
Os No verbal
pause present.
1- Verbal
pause present.
X- Can't
1.2
Detail
0123X-
Detail
tell.
(2nd
digit)
THE
MOVE
WITHIN
PAUSE(S)
-
the move.
No pause occurs within
One or more silent
pauses occur within
One or more verbal
pauses occur within
Silent
pauses occur within
and verbal
Can't tell.
1.3 (3rd
digit)
the move.
the move.
the move.
MOVE
END
OF
AT
THE
PAUSE(S)
THE
-
Oa No pause occurs at the end of the move.

1- A pause of less than 1 second occurs at the end of the move.
but less than
(count at least "one one-thou--"
"one one-thousand")
2- A pause of at least 1 second but less than 3 seconds occurs at
the end of the move.
but less than
(count at least "one one-thousand"
"three one-thousand")
3- A pause of 3 seconds or more occurs at the end of the move.
(count at least "three one-thousand")
4- A verbal
pause
Xs Can't tell.
occurs
at
the
end of
the
move.
161
ALL MOVES
2:
Detail
TURNTAKING
is
Each
digit
is a three-digit
The coding for turntaking
number.
of the
characteristic
coded separately
one turntaking
and describes
follows:
for
digit
is
The
each
as
current
move.
meaning of each code
2.1
Detail
(1st
digit)
MOVE
OF
THE
BEGINNING
-
(The current move is neither

a trespass nor one of
two simultaneous moves. )
(The current move trespasses upon the preceding
1- Trespass.
)
move.
0- Normal.
move.
(The
first
is
the
of two
move
simultaneous
current
)
begin
simultaneously.
moves which
(The
3- Second simultaneous
move is the second of
current
move.
)
two moves which begin simultaneously.
X- Can't tell.
2- First
2.2
Detail
0-
No.
(2nd digit)
(No
speech
1- Yes.
(Speech
Xs Can't
tell.
Detail
2.3
(3rd
0- Normal.
digit)
from
this
a second
move. )
is
speaker
from a second speaker

this move. )
is
interjected
interjected
during
during
ENDING
OF
THE
MOVE
-
(No trespass or discontinuation

speech
of simultaneous
associated with the ending of the current
)
move.
1- Interrupted.
2- Discontinued.
X- Can't
INTERJECTED
SPEECH
-
(The current
upon, causing
move is trespassed
his move
the current
speaker to terminate
)
prematurely.
(A trespasser
prematurely
ends his
move, or one of two simultaneous
his move prematurely,
apparently
other speaker continues.
trespassing
speakers ends
because the
tell.
162
TEACHER SOLICITATIONS
DETAIL 1:
PAUSES (see
DETAIL 2:
TURNTAKING (see
SOL
DETAIL 3:
RESPONSE PRESCRIBED
ALL MOVES)
ALL MOVES)
Not coded for this move.

Nonverbal
response.
Repeating.
Minimum of yes or no.
Selecting.
response.
Construction
correct
of the single
from
range
a specific
Construction
within
response
of a
responses.
correct
7- Construction
of a response where no range of responses
has been specified.
det3-6,
det3s5,
or
8- Construction
of a response--either
(but can't
det3-7,
tell
which one).
9s Other.
0s
12345=
6-
X- Can't
SOL
DETAIL 4:
Oa
1s
2"
3=
of
tell.
LANGUAGE ELEMENTS SOLICITED

Minimum of yes or no.
Noun or noun phrase only.
Verb or verb phrase only.
4- Minimum of noun or noun phrase.

5- Minimum of verb or verb phrase.
6- Minimum of a sentence.
7m Other.
X- Can't
SOL
DETAIL 5:
tell.
COGNITIVE LEVEL SOLICITED
0- Not coded for this

1- Unit of information.
move.
based on one
2- Inference
3- Minimum of an inference
4- Unit of information
or
information.
based on one
5- Inference
based on an
inference
level
6- Cognitive
7- Can't tell.
of information.
or more units
inference
or more units
inference.
not prescribed.
163
of
information
or
of
SOL
DETAIL 6:
CONVERSATIONAL FUNCTION
0- Focusing
solicitation.
1- Initial
solicitation
of (content or language) element(s)
2- Solicitation
of same content as a previous solicitation,
without introducing
any new element(s).
3- Solicitation
of same content as a previous solicitation,
introducing
new element(s).
4" Solicitation
of more limited
content than a previous
solicitation.
but
(new)
5- Solicitation
of content.
element(s)
of additional
6- Solicitation
or confirmation
clarification,
of correction,
of a previous
move. '
7- Other.
A- Solicitation
solicitation
of the same language as a previous
introducing
without
any new element(s).
Ba Solicitation
of the same language as a previous
but introducing
new element(s).
solicitation,
language
C- Solicitation
than a previous
of more limited
solicitation.
(new)
language element(s).
D- Solicitation
of additional
function.
X- Unclear
conversational
SOL
DETAIL 7:
LINK
linked
0- Solicitation
same speaker.
to the preceding
solicitation
of the
linked
to a previous
of the same
solicitation
that is not the immediately
solicitation.
speaker,
preceding
is
linked
2- Solicitation
the
to a teacher
that
reaction
move.
Preceding
linked
3- Solicitation
to a teacher reaction
that is
move.
not the preceding
linked
4- Solicitation
to a child move that is the
move.
preceding
1- Solicitation
linked to a child
5- Solicitation
not the preceding move.
6s Solicitation
9- Not linked
Xw Can't tell..
linked
move that
to a preceding
to any preceding
move.
164
is
structuring
move.
of
CHILD RESPONSES
(see
DETAIL 1:
PAUSES
DETAIL 21
TURNTAKING (see
DETAIL 3:
NOT CODED FOR CHILD RESPONSES
CRES
DETAIL 4:
LANGUAGE
ALL MOVES)

1s Only yes or no.
2s
34
567-
ALL MOVES)
move.
Noun.
Faulty
noun phrase.
Noun phrase.
Verb.
Faulty
verb phrase.
Verb phrase.
8- Faulty sentence.
9- Simple sentence (excluding
sentence
with compound predicate).
S- Compound or complex sentence, or sentence
with compound-predicate.
L- Other
CRES
DETAIL 5:
0123-
COGNITIVE LEVEL

Unit of information.
based on one or more units of information.
Inference
Minimum of an inference
CRES
DETAIL 6:
CORRECTNESSOF RESPONSE
0- Not Coded for

1- Correct.
2- Partially
3- Incorrect.
this
move.
correct.
X- Coder unable
to determine.
165
CRES
DETAIL 7:
LINK
0- Response
preceding
linked
to
the
preceding
is
solicitation,
which
solicitation,
which is
the
move.
1- Response linked to the preceding

not the preceding move.
2- Response linked
than the preceding
to a solicitation
other
solicitation.
3- Response linked
to a previous
response--continuation
of a
initiated
previously
response.
4- Response linked to a previous response--conclusion

initiated
previously
response.
X- Can't tell.
166
of a
TEACHER REACTIONS
DETAIL 1:
PAUSES (see
DETAIL 2:
TURNTAKING (see
TREA
DETAIL 3:
RATING FUNCTION
Os
I23456X-
Not coded for

Positive.
Qualifying.
Negative.
Acknowledging.
Instructional.
Other.
Can't tell.
ALL MOVES)
ALL MOVES)
this
move.

1- Only yes or no.
move.
TREA
DETAIL 4:
LANGUAGE
2- Noun.
3- Faulty
noun phrase.
4- Noun phrase.
5- Verb.
6s Faulty
verb phrase.
7- Verb phrase.
8- Faulty
sentence.
9- Simple sentence (excluding

sentence with compound predicate).
Ss Compound or complex sentence, or sentence with a compound
predicate.
L- Other.
X- Can't tell.
TREA
DETAIL 5:
0123X-
COGNITIVE LEVEL

Inference
of information.
Can't tell.
167
TREA
DETAIL 6:
0- Not coded
for
this
move.
1- Teacher introduces
all
2- Teacher
3- Teacher
some--but
unsolicited
introduces
introduces
the solicited
elements.
the
not all--of
element(s).
gives
essentially
gives
some--but
move.
D- Teacher gives
and introduces
E- Teacher gives
and introduces
X- Can't tell.
TREA
DETAIL 7:
the
not
of a previous
the
elements
some or all of the elements

element(s).
solicited
some or all
unsolicited
of the elements
element(s).
of
a previous
of a previous
2- Teacher
a child
move that
is
3-
a child
move that
is
459X-
a previous
of
LINK
linked
to
reaction
move.
Preceding
linked
Teacher reaction
to
not the preceding
move.
linked
Teacher reaction
to
preceding
move.
linked
Teacher reaction
to
not the preceding
move.
Not linked
to any preceding
Can't tell.
the.
a teacher
move that
is
a teacher
move that
is
move.
168
move.
as a previous
same element(s)
all--of
elements.
or language already
4- Teacher ties together elements of content

introduced.
5- Teacher corrects
the content
or clarifies
6- Other
A- Teacher
move.
C- Teacher
solicited
the
move
move
CHILD REACTIONS
DETAIL 1:
PAUSES (see
DETAIL 2:
TURNTAKING (see ALL MOVES)
CREA
DETAIL 3:
RATING FUNCTION
0=
1234s
5X-
Not coded for

Positive.
Qualifying.
Negative.
Acknowledging.
Instructional.
Can't tell.
CREA
DETAIL 4:
ALL MOVES)
this
move.
LANGUAGE
0120
34-

Only yes or no.
Noun.
Faulty
noun phrase.
Noun phrase.
567s
8-
Verb.
Faulty verb phrase.
Verb phrase.
Faulty sentence.
(excluding
9s Simple sentence
sentence with compound predicate).
S- Compound or complex sentence,
or sentence with a compound
predicate.
A- Three unintelligible
syllables
or less.
B- More than three unintelligible
syllables.
Cs Unintelligible
+ noun.
syllable(s)
faulty
noun phrase.
noun phrase.
verb.
faulty
verb phrase.
verb phrase.
DEFG=
Hs
Unintelligible
Unintelligible
Unintelligible
Unintelligible
Unintelligible
syllable(s)
syllable(s)
syllable(s)
syllable(s)
syllable(s)
+
+
+
+
+
Ja
KLa
MX-
Unintelligible
Unintelligible
Other.
Unintelligible
Can't
tell.
syllable(s)
syllable(s)
+ faulty
sentence.
+ complete
sentence.
syllable(s)
+ other.
169
CREA
DETAIL 5:
0I23-
COGNITIVE LEVEL

Inference
of information.
X- Can't
CREA
DETAIL 6:
tell.
0- Not coded for
this
move.
6
the solicited
2- Child introduces
elements.
some, but not all,
3- Child introduces
of content.
unsolicited
element(s)
4- Child ties together elements of content or language already
introduced.
the content
5- Child corrects
move.
of a previous
or clarifies
6- Other
the same element(s)
Ar Child gives essentially
as a previous
move.
Cs Child gives some, but not all,
of a previous
of the elements
move.
D3 Child gives some or all of the elements
of a previous-move
element(s).
solicited
and introduces
E- Child gives some or all of the elements
move
of a previous
unsolicited
element(s).
and introduces
X- Can't
CREA
DETAIL 7:
tell.
LINK
linked
2s Child reaction
preceding move.
to a teacher
move that
is
the
is
teacher
that
to
a
move
reaction
move.
not the preceding
linked
to a child
4- Child reaction
move that is the
move.
preceding
linked
to a child
5- Child reaction
move that is
move.
not the preceding
9-0 Not linked
to any preceding
move.
Xa Can't tell.
3- Child
linked
170
Appendix
THE PICTURE POSTER
Used as Subject
between
Top Cat
Picture
Poster:
(c) Athena Reproductions
Productions,
Hanna-Barbera
Matter
in
Teachers
the Conversations
and Children
Ltd.,
1973
London,
Inc. and Columbia
171
Pictures
Industries,
Inc.
Appendix D
SAMPLES OF TRANSCRIPTS, SEGMENTDIVISIONS,
AND TOPIC SENTENCES
CHILD DST - Transcript
Move
1T
2C
3T
4T
cols
rea:
rea:
Bolt
5T
sol:
6T
Solt
7C
res:
8T
rea:
9T
cols
10 Crea:
Look at it carefully.
Yes.
Because I'm going to talk to you about
Have a look at the picture.
Look at that.
What is it?
Water.
Water. Where's the water?
------
Yes, the water's

in the bucket.
(S] Yes.
[S] What's going to happen?
-They'll
go round.
it fall?
Where will
(P]
fall
--Where?
Where.
Who.
Who'll be wet?
Who'll be wet, wet.
What's the man called?
-
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
T rea:
C rea:
T Sol:
C rea:
T rea:
T Sol:
C rea:
T sol:
T Solt
Pedmx:
T cols
T cols
T Sol:
C rea:
25
26
27
28
29
30
T
C
T
T
T
T
31
32
33
C rea:
T Solt
T Sol:
34
C real
[P]
-
35
36
37
38
39
40
T
C
T
T
C
T
Yes, he's talking

to the cat.
Yes.
- he's very angry with the cat.
And look at this!
fall.
Who will?
sol:
rent
rea:
Solt
rea:
sol:
rea:
rea:
rea:
rea:
real
Solt
What is he?
Police
man.
A policeman,
yes.
Look at his mouth.
He looks like me, when I'm
he [T]
What, what's
angry
-What's he doing?
Look at the man.
--
[P]
-----
172
r
that
doesn't
he?
in a minute.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
C rest
T reat
C rea:
T rea:
T rea:
C rear
T Solt
C res:
T rea:
C rea:
T rear
T rear
C rea:
T Sol:
T Sol:
C rear
T rea:
T rea:
C rear
T sol:
C rea:
T sol:
C rea:
T Sol:
C rea:
T rea:
T sol:
T sol:
T sol:
C rea:
T sol:
C rest
T rea:
T rea:
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
C
C
T
T
C
T
T
C
T
C
T
T
rea:
rea:
Solt
rea:
rea:
Sol:
Sol:
rea:
Solt
rea:
rea:
rea:
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
C
C
T
T
C
T
C
reat
rea:
Sol:
Solt
rea:
Sol:
rea:
Pol man [P] -he's going

Fall,
Yes.
fall.
to pull.
He's going to pull the rope.

He's going pull to pull the rope.
Pull.
You say that.
Pull
the rope.
Pull
the rope.
Pull
the rope.
better,
That's
He's going
yes.
to pull
he rope and he'll
fall
over.
Look at that!
What's he got?
-[T]-[T]Yes.
It's
a catapult.
a, it's
[S] Cat pult.
[S] What's he going to do with
What's he going
the catapult?
to do?
[laugh]
his
bottom?
on
[S] Yes.
[S]
He's going to have a sore
Look at that!
bottom,
yes.

What will he do?
[P]
fall.
-Fall?
[S]
Yes.
[S] I don't think...

He might hit him on the head.
hit him [T] on the head, but he's
It'll
[T]
isn't
he?
fall
to
going
Look at this!
[T] yes.
All that water,
Wa ter.
Where?
the water fall?
Where will
it fall?
Where will
[P] -[P] ------fall
It' 11 fall
on his head...
[T] and then he'll
fall
It'll
[P]
(T],
won't he?
very wet
Fall.
Yes.
And look at this one?
What's this?
What's
this
called?
173
IN
be
Yes.
___
[Pl
a-a"
You've, I bet you've

Yes.
What's it called?
[P]
-Lookl
got one at home.
94
95
96
97
98
100
T
C
T
C
T
C
101
102
T rea:
C rea:
A dustbin
[S]-
103
104
T Sol:
T rea:
[S] You look at me.

A dustbin.
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
C
T
T
T
C
T
C
112
T rea:
Yes.
113
114
T'sol:
C rea:
You say that,

duo bin
Cat,
115
Pedmx:
That.
116
117
118
T rea:
C rest
T rea:
Inside
the
In side -.
Good.
119
120
121
122
123
124
T
C
T
C
T
C
125
126
T rea:
T Sol:
he?
Peeping, isn't
-And what's that cat doing?
----He's not got any wa[T]
-
127
C rea:
128
129
T Sol:
C rea:
What's
130
131
132
133
T
C
T
C
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
T Sol:
Pedmx:
C rea:
T rea:
T Sol:
T Sol:
C rea:
What's that?
-----But what's he going
-
rea:
rea:
Sol:
rea:
Sol:
rest
rea:
real
Sol:
rea:
rea:
rea:
rea:
rea:
rea:
sol:
rear
rea:
rea:
Sol:
rea:
Sol:
rea:
[P]
Da bin.
Yeah.
And look!
The cat.
Cat.
The cat's
Yeah
He's not
Look.
it?
isn't
inside
the
the
[P]
dustbin.
inside
cat's
[T] -
the
dustbin.
dustbin.
got
he got
any water.
there?
What is
That
to do with
that?
it?
[T]
---Yes, but
You tell
me,
What is it called?
[P] -[P] --
174
CHILD DST - Segment Divisions
Topic
Sentences
and Topic
Sentence
Segment
Moves
1-4
We're going to talk about the picture

have a good look at it.
5-27
There's
a bucket
on the policeman
3
28-37
The policeman
he's-very
water
of
which
and he'll
is
talking
so
fall
will
be wet.
to
the
cats,
and
angry.
38-53
The cat will

pull the rope and the policefall
over.
man will
54-66
is going to
The cat with the ccatapult
bottom and it will
hit the policeman's
be sore.
67-76
Someone's going
one's
going
to do something
to get
hit
and some-
on the head and/or
fall.
7
77-88
There's water that

be wet.
and he'll
89-120
There's
something
the cat is inside

9
120-140
called
it,
on his head
a dustbin
and
peeping.
The cat's got something,

me the name of, and he's
to do something with it.
175
r'
fall
will
that you can tell

going
CHILD EBK - Transcript

Move
1T
2C
3T
4T
5C
6T
7C
real
real
Hello
Hello
Karen.
Miss (name).
Solt
soll
rea:
cols
rea:
Can you hear me all right?

I want you to look at the picture.
Look.
Take a good look at it (T), [P]
Look.
8T
str:
9C
real
10 T sol:
11 C rea:
12 T real
And then then we'll

Yes.
Look at the picture.
-Right.
13
14
T soll
T Solt
Tell me about
What [T]
15
C rea:
16
17
18
19
20
21
T sol:
T real
T soll
Crea:
T real
T Solt
----What, who is
Yes.
Who is he?
-----Oh, he's
What [T]
22
23
24
25
26
C
T
C
T
C
Yes.
What has he got?
---You think Lt will
Hat off..
27
28
29
30
T rea:
C rea:
T rea:
Creal
And I
31
32
33
T real
T soll
T Solt
Yes.
Tell me about this.
What's that?
rea:
soll
rea:
rea:
rea:
34 C real
35
36
37
T rea:
T soll
C real
38
39
T Solt
C rea:
40
41
42
T soll
C real
T soll
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
Solt
res:
rea:
real
Solt
real
real
real
hat
think
[T]
--
[P]
---
fire
to
that
[P].
knock the hat o[T]ff?
off.
[T)
----
It's
Tell
-
going to fall,
me about him.
Have a look
-
at
good.
him.
Who is he?
-What is
it?
Karen, what is that?

News pa per.
[P]
A newspaper,
very good
yes.
--.
What's this here?
ba
ba
ba
ba.
--a
Yes, somebody's
eaten the fish.
----
176
'
it.
he?
going
Knock his
about
the picture.
[P]
[P]
[P]
talk
What's left?
What's that?
What's been left
there?
What are [Ti they?
--
51
52
53
54
55
T
T
T
T
C
56
57
T real
C real
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
T
T
C
T
T
C
T
65
66
67
T soll
T Solt
C real
What's
What's
68
69
70
T soll
C real
T real
What's that?
-Papers, yes.
71
72
73
74
75
76
T
T
C
T
T
C
Bolt
soll
res:
real
soll
real
Tell
me about this
What's that there?
ba.
Bottles.
How many bottles?
-
77
78
79
80
81
C
T
C
T
T
rest
soll
real
soll
soll
Two.
What's
Sol:
Solt
Solt
Sol:
real
real
soll
rest
real
Solt
res:
real
82 C real
83 T sol:
84' C rea:
I think
Bones.
bones.
their
that's
Yes.
What's this Karen?
da ba.
A dustbin.
Who's in the dustbin?
The cat.
The cat.
out
out
coming
coming
the
the
of
of
dustbin?
dustbin?
here.
coming out of this
bottle?
A straw, yes.
What (Ti
--
IN --
What do you do with

--
a st[T]raw?
What would you do with

[T]
[P]
--
85
86
T soll
C real
87
88
89
90
91
92
C
T
C
T
T
C
93
T real
NO
94
95
96
97
98
T
C
T
T
C
soll
real
real
soll
real
What colour is the brick?

The wall.
from the wall.
That's right
Do you think it came out of the wall?
the wall.
99
100
101
102
T
T
T
C
real
Solt
Bolt
real
103
104
105
T Solt
T Solt
C real
real
Solt
real
real
soll
real
What's
this
-A brick.
What colour
a straw?
down here?
is
the brick?
He's very good.

What about over here.
What's hanging
there?
(P]
--
What about this

What [T]
(T]
ona
ona
here?
177
'
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
T
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
T
C
T
T
C
T
T
C
T
C
C
T
T
C
T
T
C
T
T
C
T
C
T
T
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
T
C
T
T
C
T
rea:
rea:
rea:
rea:
rea:
Sol:
rea:
Sol:
Sol:
rea:
rea:
Sol:
res:
Sol:
Sol:
rea:
rea:
rea:
rea:
Sol:
Sol:
rea:
rea:
Sol:
rea:
Sol:
Sol:
rea:
rea:
rea:
rea:
rea:
Sol:
rea:
Sol:
res:
rea:
rea:
rea:
aol:
rea:
Sol:
rea:
rea:
rea:
That's
Clothes,
That's
yes.
their
What are
clothes.
they?
What are they?

What are they [T]
called?
Socks.
What colour are they?
Red white [P] [T] red white
Wha
IP) ITS red white.
What colour?
Red and white
[P],
What is, what is

What is he going
go[Tjod.
he going
to do?
to do?
Fire.
What [T]
What do you call
Will
I tell
you?
that?
Tell you.
A catapult.
Ca to pul.
That's
He has
What's
da ba
What's
ba.
very good, a catapult,

he?
one, too, hasn't
this down here?
[P] that?
yes.
[P]
Not a box, a tin.

A tin.
What do you think
[T]
What have been in

Right.
That's
water,
it?
yes very good.
178
,.
1
CHILD EBK - Segments
Segment
Moves
and Topic
Topic
Sentences
Sentence
We're going to talk about the picture,

so have a good look at it.
1-12
13-31
There's something you can tell

me about
There is someone in the
the picture.
and he's got something.
picture
32-35
You'can tell me about this other

It is something and it will
fall.
36-41
You can tell

is someone.
42-46
There
about.
47-58
Another
can tell
thing has been left

me what it is.
59-70
There's
thing's
a cat in the dustbin,

and somecoming out of the dustbin.
71-87
There is a bottle
out of it.
88-99
There is a brick
out of the wall.
10
100-124
There are some clothes hanging over there,

including
some red and white socks.
11
125-137
He's going to fire
is
catapult,
12
138-150
There's
me who this
thing.
person is.
He
thing you can tell

another
It is something.
and a straw
that
You
is coming
might have come
something called
and another
a tin
here.
me
and it's
one has one too.

had something
in
it.
179

A Multidimensional Coding System For Describing Verbal Interactions Between Teachers and Children

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A Multidimensional Coding System For Describing Verbal Interactions Between Teachers and Children

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Multidimensional Coding System For Describing Verbal Interactions Between Teachers and Children

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A MULTIDIMENSIONALCODINGSYSTEM

FOR DESCRIBING VERBAL INTERACTIONS

has been composed

has been submitted

of the Coding System

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

DESCRIPTION OF THE CODING SYSTEM

The Manner in Which and the Degree to Which

OF THE CODING SYSTEM

Taken by the Teacher

Summary and Conclusions

POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS FOR ANALYSIS

Symbols, and Conventions

One of the purposes

enabled more to be achieved

who were associated

have been accomplished

and Dr. Harry

of New York provided

have been my dear friends

and Miss I. S. Geddie,

Committee and the Senatus of the University

of the members of the Social

by Mr. and Mrs. John Thouron provided

awarded to me by the University

Mrs. Norah North,,

Coffman at the University

and human interaction.

from whom I learned

Norma Rees and Dr.

were the first

Drs. Ray Birdwhistell

toward the work in their

and the residential

Schachter provided important

The Graduate Center of the City

who were undaunted

have been that

and coders of the data.

could not have

My peace-of-mind was sustained because of the caring people who

mum was involved

because of his ability

our Havurah group created

my need to take time off

work and see it

to put the final

from work in order

and Paul Perman and Hrs.

Frank Cohen who have taught

about and have sustained

and my son Uriel

each other, and to what I found in the data,

and shared sense of purpose

the work. Together

the meaning of na'aseh

We can now take what we have learned

Each move is coded with