Problem-Solving Exploratory Talk

Problem-solving exploratory talk exemplifies how the sharing and displays of knowledge unfold in usually complex sequences of turns. The term draws on Mercer’s (1995, 2000) exploratory talk, which involves students identifying and speculating on specific content issues, and sharing knowledge and reasons in the joint pursuit of the learning goals. In this way, the participants obviously also co-construct the interaction. As Mercer also states, the three categories he refers to, which also include cumulative and disputational talk (talk where claims are either agreed or disputed uncritically), are idealised and unlikely to be found “in their pure form” (p. 102). Problem-solving exploratory talk might also include listing (similar to Mercer’s cumulative talk) and agreeing on practical matters (e.g., number and specification of questions). For this reason, the term

problem-solving exploratory talk is preferred here as this covers a slightly wider range of points than Mercer.

While students may request and provide knowledge in simple information exchanges in the orientation stage, the exploration of terms frequently occurs within a longer series of turns where students work towards identifying issues for independent study; it also occurs at some points in the follow-up discussion to student reports in PBL2s. This type of talk, i.e. the collaborative, learner-centred development of skills and content knowledge, is central to PBL pedagogy. This is done through a process of questioning, offering ideas, and requesting and providing further clarification or elaboration, thus working towards an intersubjective, shared understanding. The following example (16) shows how students collaborate to build knowledge and illustrates how the talk unfolds.

Prior to this extract, students have identified the need to find out about inherited causes of cancer and related genes. The excerpt and more detailed discussion of testing discussed below shows how the students offer suggestions, politely challenge and provide reasons for this and share subject knowledge.

Multiple contributors add to the discussion.

(16)

01 S27: and i think the problem is that (,) 02 no one has been tested before so (,)

03 they should test someone who is alive and have the (,) cancer 04 S25: mhum ((agreement))

At line 1, S27 identifies a problem that no one has been tested and although there are short pauses at the end of lines 1 and 2, no one takes the opportunity to interject, thus allowing S27 to continue and suggest a solution in line 3. S25 responds with agreement. S27 then starts a not fully audible response but is anyway superseded by S25 who agrees with and builds on the point by suggesting a possible candidate for testing, like P yeah (line 6), as does S5, thus both

showing agreement with S27. However, S29 then suggests another person, F, at

line 8 (downplaying this with i think), indirectly contesting S25’s earlier suggestion of P. This then provokes a series of turns contesting and explaining reasons. S26 questions the choice of F with a questioning the mother?, as does S27 both starting turns (lines 9 and 10) but with S26 taking over the floor to add a reason (cancer) at line 11. This follows with overlapping contributions from S27 and S29 (she’s alive). From the reason provided later by S27 at line 15, we see that the S27 contribution at line 12 is actually agreeing with S26’s questioning of the choice of mother, also demonstrated in yeah spoken in an uncertain tone by S25 at line 14. S27 provides a fuller explanation at line 15 (from the other side), adding to the case for not taking up S29’s suggestion of F, a family member mentioned in line 8 (here the students are also referring to the pedigree, a map of the family tree, on the board and referring to the other side of the family).

S26 goes on to add a further reason (don’t think it’s a recessive thing, line 18).

S26 does show some concession to S29 suggesting further research (well we need to look in, line 19), in an attempt to mitigate the disaffiliative impact

(Lindström & Sorjonen, 2013, p. 351). Although the turns at lines 21 to 22 are not fully audible, we can see that there appears to be both agreement (yeah, line 21) and disagreement (no, line 22), followed by S5 modifying the subject knowledge in lines 23 to 24. By referring to both recessive and dominant genes, S5 acknowledges S26’s earlier point (from lines 17 to 18) but adds information to support the case. This continues for 25 more turns, with students continuing to add ideas, confirm and question issues related to who to test, before they eventually move on to other causes of cancer.

This problem-solving exploratory talk is characterised by a long series of interrelated turns-at-talk. It is not necessarily a chained question and answer series of sequences (Schegloff, 2007, p. 207) but as we can see can include a question, participants agreeing or disagreeing and adding ideas in response in the form of confirmation or contradictory suggestions, and further points to elaborate earlier responses. Each turn-at-talk shapes the following contribution and helps to build up what is essentially a response to the first suggestion. This is the centre of this sequence of turns, provoking the most discussion.

We see multiple contributors and contributions as students share knowledge and provide reasons for their decisions and information. Students appear to need to

build (at least some) group consensus to move forward. The opening suggestion in lines 1 to 3 can lead to multiple responses (lines 4 to 6) and which in turn lead to further responses, for example in line 7, S5 confirms the response of the preceding speaker with P, another possible candidate for testing. Thus, the FPP and SPP are not clear cut or distinct as they become intertwined with new FPP and SPP sequences. The role of knower (K+) is distributed amongst participants and shifts as the dialogue develops.

The long exchanges of inter-related initiations and responses indicate the complexity of this type of talk and demonstrate indeed how the knowledge imbalances (e.g., in the form of knowledge about genes here) drive the

sequences forward (Heritage, 2012b). In this study, this also seems to indicate the powerfulness of this type of talk for engaging students and allowing for the development of reasoning and the sharing and building of subject knowledge.