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 a
Prototypical Revoicing
1.
2.
3.
4.
“So” marker
Verb of thinking or saying (attribution)
Reformulation
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, rejectattribution, 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/inquirer
X 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.
2.
3.
4.
“So” marker
Verb of thinking or saying (attribution)
Reformulation
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” aframe, 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, Competitors
2. Distinct and Complementary
3. Deeply Synergistic: Mutually Constitutive
Conclusions:
“The Big Enchilada”
Knowledge and Interaction
1. Contradictory, Competitors
2. Distinct and Complementary
3. Deeply Synergistic: Mutually Constitutive
Knowledge and interaction are so tightly
interconnected here that we cannot
understand one without the other.
End