Investigating the Role of Intersubjectivity in a Secondary Argumentative Classroom DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By John Brady M.A, B.A. Graduate Program in Education: Teaching and Learning The Ohio State University 2020 Dissertation Committee: Dr. David Bloome, Advisor Dr. George Newell Dr. Caroline Clark Dr. Kay Halasek Copyrighted by John Brady 2020 Abstract In a world that is growing increasingly diverse, it is important to understand the ways in which students can come to make sense of, situate, and reconcile perspectives different than their own in English Language Arts classrooms. One approach that researchers (Newell, Bloome & Hirvela, 2015) have suggested may help students engage with multiple perspectives in a meaningful manner is through argumentation and argumentative writing. Argumentative writing as defined by Newell, Bloome, and Hirvela (2015) is a set of social practices that are contextually defined and constructed for the purposes of developing deep understandings of human experiences. It entails the collection and investigation of evidence representing multiple perspectives to inform the construction of a claim, and the support of said claim through warranting. In this dissertation I build upon Newell, Bloome, and Hirvela’s (2015) notion of argumentative writing by examining the role that intersubjectivity plays in the argumentative process. To do so, I conducted a year-long ethnographic study of an 11th grade Advanced Placement Composition classroom during the 2017-2018 school year. I analyze a classroom event multiple times, each with a different focus, to investigate the construction of an intersubjective framework through classroom conversation, the ways in which the intersubjective framework was used to construct student understandings of perspectives that are unfamiliar or dissimilar from their own in said classroom conversation, and how the intersubjective framework was constructed. I framed my study using Bakhtin’s (2010 a) notion of heteroglossia as well as Rommetviet’s (1974) concept of intersubjectivity. i I found that the intersubjective framework was comprised of 6 distinct, mutually influential, and intertwined dimensions which served different functions including establishing conditions of engagement, the interpretation of content, interactional structure, and epistemological stance towards argumentation. Those dimensions are: avoiding dismissal, trauma, the re-narrativization of personal experiences, argumentation as social awareness, complexity, and third space. To establish these dimensions, the teacher introduced four moves that were appropriated by students throughout the interaction: reflexivity, reflection, reframing memories/experiences, and intercontextuality. In my paper I argue students were able to construct an understanding of an essay conveying a perspective previously unfamiliar through the establishment and appropriation of an intersubjective framework. ii Acknowledgements Thank you to my family, partner, friends, colleagues, and professors who have supported and guided me over the past twelve years of my educational and professional journey. It has been a long and difficult road that I could not have traveled without you. iii Vita 2012……………………………….B.A. English, Political Science, University of Michigan 2013……………………………….M.A. Educational Studies, University of Michigan 2015……………………………….M.A. Special Education, University of Detroit Mercy 2013-2015…………………………Hamtramck High School, Hamtramck, MI: Special Educator, Co-Chair of Special Education Dept. Publications Bloome, D., Minjeong K., Hong, H., Brady, J. (2018). Multiple source use when reading and writing in literature/language arts in educational contexts. In J.L.G. Braasch, I. Braten, M.T. McCrudden (Eds.) Handbook of Multiple Source Use. New York:Routledge Bloome, D., & Brady, J. (2017). Curricular conversations, reading the world, intertextuality, and doing school in a tenth grade English language arts classroom conversation. In G. Newell, R. Durst, & J. Marshall (Eds.), English language arts research and teaching: Revisiting and extending Arthur Applebee’s contributions. New York: Routledge. Bloome, D., Beauchemin, F., Brady, J., Buescher, E., Kim, M., & Schey, R. (2018). Anthropology of education; anthropologyin education; anthropology for education. In B. Street (Ed.), International encyclopedia of anthropology. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. Brady, J. (2018). Investigating the relationship between classroom conversation and argumentative writing using writing moves and types of talk. Acta Paedagogica Vilnensia, 40, 94-110. Field of Study Major Field: Education, Teaching and Learning iv Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ iii Vita ......................................................................................................................... iv List of Examples .................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ........................................................................................................ ix Chapter 1: Theoretical Frame ................................................................................. 1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 Conceptualizing the Utterance .................................................................................................... 5 The Role of Genre ..................................................................................................................... 10 Conceptual Similarities Between Writing and Talk .................................................................. 17 The Role of Chronotopes .......................................................................................................... 23 The Self, The Other, and Intersubjectivity ................................................................................ 27 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 34 Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 36 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................ 41 Classroom Talk ......................................................................................................................... 43 The Negotiation of Multiple Perspectives in Research on Classroom Talk That Incorporates Exploratory Conversational Structures ..................................................................................... 54 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 63 Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................... 65 Methodological frame ............................................................................................................... 65 Settings and Participants ........................................................................................................... 67 Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................................................... 70 Gaining Entrance to the Research Site. ................................................................................. 70 Methods for Data Collection. ................................................................................................ 71 Data Analysis Procedures.......................................................................................................... 74 Phase One: Data Organization. .............................................................................................. 74 Phase Two: Selecting Focal Events. ...................................................................................... 75 Phase 3: Transcribing and Searching for Patterns Across Events. ........................................ 80 Phase 4: Discourse Analysis of a Classroom Event. ............................................................. 82 v Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 84 Chapter 4: Findings ............................................................................................... 89 Just Walk on By: A Black Man Ponders His Power to Alter Public Space .............................. 91 Tracing Intersubjective Dimensions Throughout the Conversation ......................................... 94 Avoiding Dismissal. .............................................................................................................. 97 Analysis.............................................................................................................................