Reading comprehension, which is mediated by text, is defined as a dialogic exchange of meaning or transformation of mutual knowledge between the writer and reader (Nystrand, 1986). Studies, which drew upon the dialogism of Bakhtin (1981, 1986), highlight the configuration of talk between teacher and students as they actively construct meaning together in the classroom (Alexander, 2004; Wells, 1999). This view of talk for meaning making in reading comprehension instruction emphasizes the deliberate, strategic, problem-solving processes of the readers (teachers and students) as they engage with a text, a process which Durkin (1993) terms “the essence of reading”. Similarly, there is an increasing amount of research arguing for reading as a ‘social and cultural construction’ act (Webb, 2009). Freebody, Luke, and Gilbert (1991) suggest ways of rethinking the approaches to reading instruction. Reading instruction, not at the early years level but at the primary and secondary levels, has always been related to reading ‘comprehension instruction’ as reading passages are typically accompanied by oral or written comprehension questions. They stress that it should not be about the ‘best’ way to approach reading comprehension instruction but rather to critically examine different “reading practices and positions that are interactively built by particular instructional activities” (p. 438).
A key presupposition within the vast body of literacy research is that discussions about and around texts enhance students’ comprehension, thinking, and reasoning (e.g., Almasi et al., 1996; Cazden, 1988). Such a perspective is situated within a rich sociocultural tradition emerging from the classic work of scholars such as Vygotsky (1978) and more contemporary theorists like Bakhtin (1981, 1986) who suggest that thinking and reasoning are inherently dialogical. Research has identified a number of approaches to conducting intellectually stimulating discussions that appear to be effective in promoting high-level responses to text in elementary as well
a high school settings (e.g., Collaborative Reasoning, Philosophy for Children, Questioning the Author, Instructional Conversations, or Book Club). These approaches serve various purposes depending on the goals teachers set for their students: to adopt a critical or analytic stance (e.g., Anderson et al., 1997), to acquire information (e.g., Beck, McKeown, Sinatra, & Loxterman, 1991), or to respond to literature on an aesthetic level (e.g., Raphael, Gavelek, & Daniels, 1998). Discussion approaches that give prominence to interrogating or querying the text in search of the underlying arguments, assumptions, world views, or beliefs (Maybin & Moss, 1993), align with what Wade, Thompson, and Watkins (1994) describe as a critical–analytic stance. Such a stance encourages a discussion in which the reader’s querying mind is engaged, prompting him or her to ask questions, and promoting a more subjective, critical response toward the text.
Recent literature on reading comprehension instruction has focused on the concept of ‘talk around text’ or ‘literacy talk’. Being seen as a wider view of literacy, according to Wallace (2008), during ‘literacy talk’, “texts become amenable to critical scrutiny when students and teachers are able to speak as producers or interpreters of texts” (p. 63). Conversely, text in classrooms is often perceived as lifeless, treated simply as an object to be used “rather than given new life, or re- authored by readers in new settings”. In other words, it is unfortunate that reading texts are used in a very ‘mechanical’ manner where teachers simply teach vocabulary and comprehension. Over a decade has passed since Freebody et al’s (1991) study, yet the worksheet culture in reading instruction still prevails; where students are “invited to act on text, rather than recreate it or reshape it to their own ends” (Wallace, 2006, p. 21). Such factors continue to hamper the configuration of talk in reading comprehension classes for meaning making and deep understanding. Similar to Myhill, Wallace also cautions against denying the “impact of power differential in teacher-students interaction” (2008, p. 63). According to Hofstede’s (1986) categorisations, ‘power distance’ appears to influence classroom interaction, largely in Asian classrooms, and it seems to work as an opposing factor to applying communicative activities. In large power distance societies teachers dominate students, who are expected to act as teachers instruct them (Hofstede, 1986; Richards & Lockhart, 1994). In this type of classroom, interaction between teachers and students or students and students is limited. On the other hand, in small power
distance societies students interact with teachers and other students more actively and freely (Kasuya, 2007). These different power dimensions affect classroom interaction. Students are often reluctant to participate in communicative activities. Thus, cultural factors such as power distance seem to underlie the prevalence of the monologic discourse in the classroom.
In the current research climate, Nystrand (2006) highlights that rigorous experimental studies of classrooms’ ‘instructional scripts’ (Gutierrez, 1994), which refers to the measurable, strategic balance of turns in classroom talk, are generally favoured. Noteworthy of mention however, is Murphy & Edwards’ (2005) meta- analysis study, measuring the effects of various approaches to ‘discussion talk’ on reading comprehension. To add, numerous studies have mainly focused their investigations on the role of classroom talk, as an environment for reading comprehension, in the middle and high schools.
In a study conducted in the United States, Wolf, Crosson, and Resnick (2005) found that the use of collaborative talk during reading lessons was positively associated with student gains in comprehension and knowledge building. The researchers believed that classroom talk, in which teachers support students, can play an important part in helping students between the ages of six and fourteen - across primary to secondary levels, to deepen their understanding of text. They also suggested that as students develop into independent readers they begin to take increasing responsibility for leading the conversations that surround a text. The study examined the quality of teachers’ and students’ talk in ten different schools. It found that effective classroom talk was linked to a high level of student’s thinking and active use of knowledge. Discussion based activities, in combination with academically challenging tasks, were positively related to students’ development of literacy skills. More importantly, it also found that a failure to reformulate ideas or press students to elaborate on their ideas, resulted in exchanges that tended to be brief and did not contribute to students’ substantial understanding of the text.
In the end, just as the researchers of the meta-analysis revealed, indeed not all discussion approaches are created equal, nor are they equally powerful at increasing students’ high-level comprehension of text (Wolf, Crosson, & Resnick, 2005). In fact,
very few approaches were effective at increasing literal or inferential comprehension and critical thinking and reasoning about text (Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009). Nonetheless, talk appears to play a fundamental role in text- based comprehension. In effect, Sen (2010) emphasized that talk is a means and not an end. It is one thing to get students to talk to each other during literacy instruction but quite another to ensure that such engagement translates into deep understanding and effective teaching and learning. Simply putting students into groups and encouraging them to talk is not enough to enhance comprehension and learning; it is but a step in the process. Therefore, this proves how crucial it is to develop a defined and strategic approach to support the pedagogical effect on classroom talk for teachers to adopt effectively (Sen, 2010).