Revoicing in Clinical Interviewing:Interaction Meets Knowledge

Andy diSessa, Jim Greeno, Sarah Michaels, Cathy O’Connor

Work supported, in part, with a Conference Grant from American Educational Research Association (AERA)

Larger Framing

Analysis of Knowledge and Analysis of Interaction are often positioned as adversaries.

The KAIA Project

To investigate possible synergistic relationship between knowledge analysis (KA) and interaction analysis (IA)

Are they:1. Contradictory, Competitors?2. Distinct and Complementary?3. Deeply Synergistic: Mutually Constitutive?

Edited Volume

This and other studies will appear in:

diSessa, A., Levin, M, & Brown, N. (Eds.): (2015) Knowledge and Interaction in Learning: Theories in Collision. Taylor and Francis.

Clinical Interviewing

Manifestly a distinctive interactional form, used for studying students’ knowledge and learning at least since Piaget

• Contested: Characterized as unnatural, interactionally suspect, ecologically invalid

• Sometimes a locus for contesting the viability of “knowledge,” per se

IA Enters via: Revoicing

O’Connor and Michaels, 1993, 1996.

Grounded in discourse analysis, conversation analysis, ethnography of speaking

Structure and Function

Starting with structure:

Structure of aPrototypical Revoicing

1. “So” marker2. Verb of thinking or saying (attribution)3. Reformulation4. Solicitation of validation

So,you’re saying energy is not conserved in chemistry.Do I have that right?

Functions of Revoicing• Validating students as sources of

valuable knowledge and legitimate adjudicators of their own ideas.

• Positioning students as participants in a scientific enterprise

• “Bending” toward normative science– Carrying “productive” student ideas to the floor– Clarifying what they have said for other

students– Introducing technical vocabulary

Method: Developed a Ground-up Coding Scheme

• Goal or function: clarify, refine, promote rethinking (12 categories +)

• Formulation:– Focus: what’s said, thought, infered, chain of

reasoning, other, extended explanation of focus (4 categories +)

– Anticipation Frame: (A-Frame): yes/no, extended explanation (2 categories +)

• Interviewer response: yes/no, reject-attribution, rethink&affirm/reject/refine (7 categories +)

• …

Interview

• “Why is it hotter in the summer and colder in the winter?”

• Subject is “J”

• Interviewer (I) is me.

Baseline

About a third, 30 / ~100 turns of the interviewer were classified as revoicing!!

Examples

I: So you’ve decided now that probably //J: // I haven't decided anything yet. I'm just

thinking; see if it makes more sense.I: I understand. That’s great.

I: So the problem that you are having now is that you are thinking that this part of the world is just going to get cooked? Is that //

J: Right. … well … yeah. Yeah, because ….

Examples: Following a Chain of Reasoning

I: Let me try to follow your reasoning. You decided that // It sounded like in the beginning you weren't quite sure if it was cold in Australia when it was hot here or not. [J: Right.]

I: Then you decided you did know that it’s wintertime there, it’s cold season there when it is warm here. Did I // [J: Yeah.]

I: So you decided that you knew that. That was pretty certain. [J: Right. Definitely.]

I: OK. Definitely.

I: Now that’s a problem because your little theory says that if it’s closer // [to the sun, then it is hotter.] [J: Right.]

Analysis of Function

In common:+ Bringing student/interviewee ideas to the floor

Mutatis mutandis:• Validate students as sources of (scientifically)

valuable ideas

Analysis of Function

In common:+ Bringing student/interviewee ideas to the floor

Mutatis mutandis:• Validate students as sources of (scientifically)

valuable ideas

Analysis of Function

In common:+ Bringing student/interviewee ideas to the floor

Mutatis mutandis:• Reinforce that interviewee ideas are the focus

NOT in clinical context:X Framing interviewee as scientist/inquirerX Bending toward the normative X Carrying forward “productive” ideas X Clarifying for others X Introducing normative terms

Analysis of Function

New (newly important):

! Clarifying (for the interviewer)! Asking for refinement! Promoting reconsideration

Synthesis of Function

Classroom Context:• Moving students along toward normative

understanding and participation

Clinical Context:• “Making data appear” about focused aspects

of interviewee’s thinking

Analysis of Structure

1. “So” marker2. Verb of thinking or saying (attribution)3. Reformulation4. Solicitation of validation

Structural Anomalies?

Relatively few revoicings had the conventional structural earmarks.

A kind of uniformity can be recovered by “functional abstraction,” observing more general purposes served by the earmarks.

Functional Abstaction(anticipated in the grounded codes)

ATTRIBUTION (verb of thinking or saying) subsumed under “FOCUS” – specifying what, precisely, is the focus of attention.

SOLICITATION OF VALIDATION subsumed under providing an “A-FRAME” (anticipation of answer frame), a partial specification of what kind of an answer is sought.

Structural Anomalies?

1. “So”: only 14/30.

To the extent that “so” serves to identify that the relevant idea is inferred from what the interviewee says or thinks, this is a partial specification of FOCUS.

Diversity: “so” means:- I infer from what you say…- You inferred…- You MIGHT have inferred…

And there are a host of other, more extended ways of specifying focus.

Structural Anomalies?

2. Attribution (“verb of thinking or saying”): only 11/30.

Can be read as FOCUS.

Diversity:– The words said– The gist of what was said– An inference that was made– An inference that MIGHT have made– The inferential link, WHY an inference was made– Epistemic attitude: “That seemed obvious to you.”– …

Structural Anomalies?

3. Reformulation

- Seldom actual reforumlations (no bending)- More literal repetitions or subspecification of

aspect of interest.

Diversity: The coding scheme did not pick up a lot of interest, here that was not captured under focus.

Structural Anomalies

4. Soliciting validation: Only 4/30.

Might be read as a particular “low-resolution” a-frame, guidance on what kind of answer is hoped for (agree or disagree). Mostly the interviewer and interviewee seemed to think, and assumed, they understood each other well.

Diversity in a-frame:– Anticipated “yes or no” about an interviewee’s

interpretation– “Is that the idea? (rough agreement)– “I’m trying to understand exactly …” (anticipating

more detail)

Knowledge and Interaction?

• Hugely diverse practice, intimately connected to interviewer focus and intent.

• How is it that strategies align so well with goals? (consider the clinical vs. classroom cases)– Strategized! (involving “problem solving” concerning

goals, resources, and context)– Evidence of strategizing, and interviewer/teacher

report – Reflective practitioners!– Knowledge of Interaction, need not be conscious

• Theory of knowledge is strongly implicated– VERY few questions about about the normative list of

ideas, no assessment of right and wrong– VERY strong attention to diversity and contextuality

Conclusions: “The Big Enchilada”

• You cannot understand revoicing without understanding the interviewer’s knowledge, i.e., without understanding the functions it serves for those who do it, and how they imagine that what they do might bring about what they want.

• This is particularly true in knowledge-oriented enterprises like clinical interviewing, when diverse assumptions about knowledge are involved, and practices will track them.

Conclusions: “The Big Enchilada”

Knowledge and Interaction

1. Contradictory, Competitors2. Distinct and Complementary3. Deeply Synergistic: Mutually Constitutive

Conclusions: “The Big Enchilada”

Knowledge and Interaction

1. Contradictory, Competitors2. Distinct and Complementary3. Deeply Synergistic: Mutually Constitutive

Knowledge and interaction are so tightly interconnected here that we cannot understand one without the other.

End