Touch in achieving a pedagogically relevant focus in classrooms
Keywords:Touch, Joint attention, Pedagogical interaction, Complex multimodal gestalt, Classroom, Multimodal conversation analysis
This article focuses on touch, talk and embodied resources as a means of directing participants’ attention to a focal point in a pedagogical task. The data are drawn from a corpus of approximately 150 hours of video-recorded lessons from primary and lower secondary classrooms in monolingual and multilingual settings in Finland. The data were scanned for episodes of touch that occurred between teachers and students in relation to an ongoing pedagogical agenda. Using multimodal conversation analysis, we identified a complex multimodal gestalt (CMG; Mondada 2014a) consisting of touch followed by a deictic pointing gesture that occurred within an ongoing pedagogical activity. We present three excerpts from different pedagogical contexts that involve such a CMG as a means of directing a recipient’s attention to a pedagogical task. The CMG is relevant for managing attention within an ongoing learning task. We show how this CMG provides parallel participation frameworks without competition for the speaker, and argue that it is a technique for bringing together the teacher, student and content in ways that encourage the recipient’s attention to the pedagogical content. This analysis contributes to the growing body of studies on haptic sociality, especially in the institutional context of education.
Ahlholm, M. & Karvonen, U. (2020). Episodes of touch between classroom assistant and student in preparatory education. Presentation in NERA 2020, Rethinking the futures of education in the Nordic countries. University of Turku, 4.3.2020.
Albert, S., Heath, C., Skach, S., Harris, M., Miller, M., & Healey, P. (2019). Drawing as transcription: how do graphical techniques inform interaction analysis?. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v2i1.113145
Bergnehr, D. & Cekaite, A. (2018). Adult-initiated touch and its functions at a Swedish preschool: controlling, affectionate, assisting and educative haptic conduct. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(3), 312-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2017
Burdelski, M. (2010). Socializing politeness routines: Action, other-orientation, and embodiment in a Japanese preschool. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1606–1621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.007.
Burdelski, M. (2020). Embodiment, ritual, and ideology in a Japanese-as-a-heritage-language preschool classroom. In M. J. Burdelski & K. M. Howard (eds.), Language socialization in classrooms: Culture, interaction and language development (pp. 200-223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burdelski, M. & Mitsuhashi, K. (2010). “She thinks you’re kawaii”. Socializing Affect, Gender and Relationships in a Japanese Preschool. Language in Society, 39, 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990650
Cekaite, A. (2010). Shepherding the child: Embodied directive sequences in parent–child interactions. Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 30(1), 1-25.
Cekaite, A. (2015). The coordination of talk and touch in adults’ directives to children: Touch and social control. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2), 152-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1025501
Cekaite, A. (2016). Touch as social control: Haptic organization of attention in adult-child interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 92, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.003
Cekaite A. & Kvist Holm, M. (2017). The Comforting Touch: Tactile Intimacy and Talk in Managing Children´s Distress. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1301293
Deppermann, A. (2013). Multimodal interaction from a conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.014
Freebody P. & Freiberg, J. (2000). Public and pedagogic morality: The local order of instructional and regulatory talk in classrooms. In Hester S. & Francis D. (Eds.), Local educational order. Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action (pp.141–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Charles, G. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X
Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, Stance and Affect in the Organization of Activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069457
Goodwin, C: (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of pragmatics, 46(1), 8-23.
Goodwin, M. H. (2017). Haptic sociality. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck & J. S. Jordan (Eds.), Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction (pp. 73–102). Oxford University Press.
Goodwin, M. H. & Cekaite, A. (2018) Embodied family choreography: Practices of control, care, and mundane creativity. Routledge.
Heinonen, P., Karvonen, U. & Tainio, L. (2020). Hand-on-shoulder touch as a resource for constructing a pedagogically relevant participation framework. Linguistics and Education, 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100795
Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The Handbook of Conversation analysis (pp. 57–76). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Jakonen, T. (2016). Managing multiple normativities in classroom interaction: Student responses to teacher reproaches for inappropriate language choice in a bilingual classroom. Linguistics & Education 33, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.11.003
Jakonen, T. (2018). Professional Embodiment: Walking, Re-engagement of Desk Interactions, and Provision of Instruction during Classroom Rounds. Applied Linguistics, 0/0, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy034
Karvonen, U. Heinonen, P. & Tainio, L. (2018). Kosketuksen lukutaitoa. Konventionaaliset kosketukset oppilaiden välisissä vuorovaikutustilanteissa. In L. Lehti, P. Peltonen, S. Routarinne, V. Vaakanainen & V. Virsu (Eds.) Uusia lukutaitoja rakentamassa. Building New Literacies (pp. 159–183). AFinLA Yearbook 75(1), Jyväskylä. https://doi.org/10.30661/afinlavk.69257
Karvonen, U., Tainio, L., Routarinne, S. & Slotte, A. 2015. Tekstit selitysten resursseina oppitunnilla. Puhe ja kieli 35(4), 187-209. Retrieved from https://journal.fi/pk/article/view/55388
Karvonen, U., Tainio, L. & Routarinne, S. 2018. Uncovering the pedagogical potential of texts: Curriculum materials in classroom interaction in first language and literature education. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. https://doi-org.ezproxy.utu.fi/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.12.003
Kidwell, M., & Zimmerman, D. (2007). Joint attention as action. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 592–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.012
Kääntä, L. (2010). Teacher turn-allocation and repair practices in classroom interaction: A multisemiotic perspective. Jyväskylä studies in humanities,
Kääntä, L. & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2013). Manual Guiding in Peer Group Interaction: A Resource for Organizing a Practical Classroom Task. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(4), 322-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.839094
Lachner, A., Jarodzka, H., & Nückles, M. (2016). What makes an expert teacher? Investigating teachers’ professional vision and discourse abilities. Instructional Science, 44(3), 197-203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9376-y
Lindwall, O. & Ekström, A. (2012). Instruction-in-interaction: The teaching and learning of a manual skill. Human Studies, 35(1), 27-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-012-9213-5
Macbeth, D. (1990). Classroom Order as Practical Action: the making and un-making of a quiet reproach. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(2), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569900110205
Margutti, P. (2011). Teachers’ reproaches and managing discipline in the classroom: When teachers tell students what they do ‘wrong’. Linguistics and Education, 22(4), 310–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.02.015
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies 8, 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059561
Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 1977-1997.
Mondada, L. (2014a). Pointing, talk, and the bodies. In M. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.). From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance: Essays in honor of Adam Kendon (pp. 95-124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mondada, L. (2014b). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137-156.
Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336-366.
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.141387
Mortensen, K. (2009). Establishing Recipiency in Pre-Beginning Position in the Second Language Classroom, Discourse Processes, 46(5), 491-515, https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959463
Mortensen, K. 2012. Conversation Analysis and Multimodality. In J. Wagner, K. Mortensen & C.A. Chapelle (Eds.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1061–1068). Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0212
Sahlström, F. (2002). The interactional organization of hand raising in classroom interaction. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 47-57.
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in Conversational Openings. American anthropologist, 70(6), 1075-1095.
Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Body torque. Social Research, 65(3), 535-596.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambrindge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom. A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Suvilehto, J., Glerean, E., Dunbar, R., Hari, R., Nummenmaa, L., & Suvilehto, J. (2015). Topography of social touching depends on emotional bonds between humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(45), 13811–13816. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519231112
Streeck, J. (2013). Interaction and the living body. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 69-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.010
Tainio, L. (2007). Miten tutkia luokkahuoneen vuorovaikutusta keskustelunanalyysin keinoin? [How to do Conversation Analysis in the Classroom?] In L. Tainio (ed.) Vuorovaikutusta luokkahuoneessa: näkökulmana keskustelunanalyysi (pp. 15-58). Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
Tainio, L. (2016). Kiusoittelun kielioppi: nuorten elämää luokkahuoneessa. In A. Solin, J. Vaattovaara, N. Hynninen, U. Tiililä & T. Nordlund (Eds.) Kielenkäyttäjä muuttuvissa instituutioissa. Language user in changing institutions (pp. 20-42). AFinLA Yearbook 74. Retrieved from https://journal.fi/afinlavk/article/view/59718
Tanner, M. (2017). Taking interaction in literacy events seriously: a conversation analysis approach to evolving literacy practices in the classroom. Language and Education, 31(5), 400-417, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2017.1305398
Tomasello, M. (2010). Social cognition before the revolution. P. Rochat (Ed.) Early Social Cognition. Understanding others in the First Months of Life (pp. 301-314). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Tulbert, E., & Goodwin, M. H. (2011). Choreographies of attention: Multimodality. In: J. Streeck, C. Goodwin & C. LeBaron (Eds.) Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp. 79-92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2020 Author and Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We follow the Budapest Open Access Initiative's definition of Open Access.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
The journal allows software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)
The journal provides article level metadata to DOAJ
The journal allows readers to read, download, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.