Received: 2 February 2023 | Accepted: 17 April 2023

DOI: 10.1002/jaal.1289

ARTICLE

Roles of engagement: Analyzing adolescent students' talk

during controversial discussions

Shireen Al-­Adeimi | Jennie Baumann

Students' diverse sets of knowledge contribute vital LITER ATUR E R E V I E W

perspectives to whole-­classroom discussions, espe-
cially when discussing controversial topics (Crocco Dialogic talk
et al., 2018). Claire and Holden (2007) define contro-
versial issues as those with conflicting values, opin- Dialogic, or academically productive talk, is character-
ions, priorities, and interests; where strong emotions ized by its equal power relationships among teachers
can be revealed through discussion; and where the and students (O'Connor & Michaels, 2007) with students
subject itself is multifaceted (p. 6). In the United States' upholding responsibility for managing the talk through
current cultural climate, discussions of topics deemed open-­ ended questions, multiple perspectives, and
controversial have been outlawed or restricted in public feedback from teachers to students that is meaningful
schools (Ray & Gibbons, 2021; Stout & Wilburn, 2022), and specific (Nystrand et al., 2003; Reznitskaya, 2012).
thereby presenting a challenge to teachers who en- Unlike monologic talk, which is typified by teacher-­led
gage students in such topics. Furthermore, in a cross-­ talk that aims to elicit factual knowledge (van der Veen
national study of teacher preparation programs in three et al., 2018) and leaves little room for elaborated dis-
countries, Pace (2019) found that teachers may avoid cussion or student input (Mehan, 1979), dialogic talk-­
controversial topics because they may lack expertise centered classrooms position students as co-­creators
and knowledge, fear losing control of the classroom, of knowledge through constructive and exploratory
or creating further deficit-­ based views on the topic. discussion that builds upon and challenges ideas
However, as Dunn et al. (2018) argue, educators have (Mercer, 2004). Moreover, Freire (1972) considered
a responsibility to challenge issues related to justice as dialogic talk as an opportunity to learn from others and
they are central to students' experiences. a path toward critical thinking. In this way, students
Learning how to participate in controversial dis- who participate in socially controversial discussions
cussions benefits students' academic outcomes use dialogic talk to engage in “reality as process” and
(Pace, 2019); however, what does (or should) dis- “thinking which does not separate itself from action, but
cussion look like when these perspectives collide? constantly immerses itself in temporality without fear of
How do students navigate these essential discus- the risks involved” (Freire, 1972, p. 92). Students, such
sions? Dialogic talk affords students opportunities as those involved in the current study, were processing
to build upon existing knowledge and is typically reality and immersing themselves in meaningful topics
oriented toward questions with multiple viewpoints which shaped their participation in dialogic talk.
that generate critical thinking, thereby allowing stu- Not all forms of talk are dialogic or academically pro-
dents to process complex topics in collaborative ways ductive, in that students may talk to one another and
(Reznitskaya, 2012). As such, difficult or controversial the teacher, but they may do so in parallel rather than
topics are prime candidates for dialogic talk. In this integrated ways. For example, teacher-­initiated ques-
paper, we use thematic content analysis to explore tions, followed by a student's response, and the teach-
seventh-­and eighth-­grade students' talk about a con- er's evaluation of the response (IRE; Mehan, 1979) are
troversial topic over the course of a unit designed to ubiquitous in K-­12 classrooms (Elizabeth et al., 2012;
build students' discourse and perspective taking skills Nystrand et al., 2003). Yet, these exchanges do not
through whole-­classroom dialogic talk. provide students with opportunities to respond to

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Literacy Association.

42 | wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jaal
 J. Adolesc. Adult Lit. 2023;67:42–52.
 |

19362706, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaal.1289 by CochraneArgentina, Wiley Online Library on [30/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AL-­A DEIMI and BAUMANN    43

open-­ended questions, critically engage with each oth- for engagement and quality of response. Key ele-
er's ideas and contributions, or build on one another's ments of quality responses include initiation of ideas
perspectives. As such, while talk is occurring during IRE or questions by students, opportunities to expand or
exchanges, it is often restricted to recall of information challenge others' contributions, and active listening to
and does not allow for an integration of perspectives, comprehend the concepts more accurately (Muhonen
and thereby can be considered less productive. In con- et al., 2018). These concepts are supported in research
trast, what scholars refer to interchangeably as dialogic by Reznitskaya (2012) and Crocco et al. (2018).
discussions (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), accountable Sedova et al. (2019) analyzed data from 32 classes
talk (Michaels et al., 2008) or academically productive in the Czech Republic to ascertain if the frequency of
talk (Chapin & O'Connor, 2007) is described by Resnick student talk predicted higher reading comprehension.
et al. (2015) as talk involving students who: They found that “classroom discourse affects different
students in a class in different ways depending on how
…make public their half-­formed ideas, ques- actively they participate” (Sedova et al., 2019, p. 8). The
tions, and nascent explanations. Other stu- difference is predicated on their role, negotiated through
dents take up their classmates' statements: engagement in the conversation. Sedova et al. (2019) in-
challenging or clarifying a claim, adding dicated that while students who participate more actively
their own questions, reasoning about a pro- in discourse and students who participate peripherally by
posed solution, or offering a counter claim listening have greater literacy achievement, those who
or an alternate explanation. This form of talk and argue more have better learning outcomes.
talk is orchestrated by a teacher. It may be Therefore, to extrapolate results from Muhonen
conducted in whole groups, smaller collab- et al. (2018) and Sedova et al. (2019) to students' en-
orative groups, or with pairs of students. gagement with controversial topics, students who ac-
The key component is the learning power tively participate by initiating ideas and questions with
generated by two or more minds working peers, challenging or expanding upon others' ideas,
on the same problem together. (pp. 3–­4) and using talk to negotiate roles have stronger reading
comprehension.
As such, academically productive dialogic talk occurs
when teachers create environments that provide ex-
tended opportunities for students to share ideas, critically Discursive roles
engage with such ideas, and build on each other's con-
tributions in collaborative ways that prioritize collective Within a given discussion, students' discursive roles
thinking and understanding. do not remain static. Goffman (1981) uses the term
participation framework to theorize the relationships
among speakers, listeners, and the words uttered in a
Dialogic talk and student outcomes given conversation, which include understandings about
participant roles and interaction rules. He also argues
The benefits of dialogic talk are numerous. Dialogic talk that participants can shift their footing—­or the positions
enables students to participate in meaningful inquiry and taken by each person—­by negotiating and renegotiating
receive specific feedback, leading to co-­construction of their roles within a given interaction. For example, a per-
knowledge (Reznitskaya, 2012). Participation in dia- son who is not the intended audience of a given utter-
logic talk supports students' persuasive writing skills ance (i.e., is not a “ratified participant”) can shift into this
(Al-­
Adeimi & O'Connor, 2021), text comprehension role by addressing the speaker directly. O'Connor and
(Murphy et al., 2009), argumentative reasoning (Kuhn Michaels (2007) extend participation frameworks and
& Crowell, 2011), and encourages students to develop footing to classroom talk, and argue that teacher moves
claims and accrue evidence for support as they use such as revoicing (e.g., “So are you saying…?”) can shift
higher-­order thinking skills such as inference, synthe- students away from IRE frameworks, thereby creating
sis, and questioning to share about a topic (Rapanta & “complex and productive participant frameworks within
Christodoulou, 2019). In addition, dialogic talk provides the classroom, positioning students as thinkers who are
students a means to verbally process their learning for temporarily on equal footing with the teacher” (O'Connor
their own and others' understanding (Vygotsky, 1978). & Snow, 2018, p. 331). While the focus of this study is
Students who participate in classroom discussions on students' talk, these dialogic interactions occur as a
or who learn in talk-­centric classrooms with an empha- result of teacher facilitation, and thereby provide oppor-
sis on discussion quality tend to have greater reading tunities to examine how students' discursive roles shift
comprehension (see Muhonen et al., 2018; Sedova within a dialogic participation structure where controver-
et al., 2019). In their study of sixth-­ grade students sial discussions are taking place.
in Finnish schools, Muhonen et al. (2018) used the Dialogic talk can also serve as a manifestation
CLASS-­S instrument to analyze classroom discussions of power. Delpit (1988) refers to a culture of power
 |

19362706, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaal.1289 by CochraneArgentina, Wiley Online Library on [30/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
44    AL-­A DEIMI and BAUMANN

which encompasses ways of talking, writing, and self-­ this analysis, we qualitatively examine seven classroom
presentation in that there are cultural rules substantiated videos from four classrooms participating in the Word
by the dominant culture. Power can be substantiated Generation (WG) program, a cross-­curricular, supple-
through talk by gender and social status (Pierce & mental program that supports middle-­grade students'
Gilles, 2022) and cultural roles (Johnson, 1997). These reasoning skills, comprehension, perspective taking,
can be seen in how students negotiate their roles. and academic vocabulary through learning about con-
troversial topics (Snow et al., 2009). Participants in this
study engaged in a range of discussions designed to
Navigating controversial topics through a support students' vocabulary, comprehension, and rea-
lens of power and privilege soning skills through instructional units about contro-
versial or discussable topics.
Acknowledging that power and privilege can manifest Topics of discussion included questions such as: Is
through curriculum, what issues are (or are not) dis- the death penalty justified? and Should people continue
cussed, and the manner in which discussion occurs to eat meat? Discussions also included relevant aca-
can reinforce power and privilege at the student level. demic vocabulary (5–­7 words per unit) and integrated
Ochoa and Pineda (2008) state, students whose expe- reading and writing activities throughout the unit. In
riences are reflected in schools (i.e., white/Eurocentric, this study, we focus on the unit centered on the follow-
cisgender, middle class, monolingual, nondisabled, and ing question: Should the NFL Require the Washington
male) are “more likely to exhibit higher levels of enti- Team to Change their Name? (Prior to 2022, the team
tlement, ownership, and confidence in the classroom was known by a derogatory name that disparaged
compared with students whose schooling has been Indigenous people. In this paper, we use “Washington
less positive” (p. 47). For example, Dooley (2009) indi- Team” to refer to the team rather than its previous mon-
cated bi-­and multilingual students can face rejection in iker. We follow this approach in excerpts of student
discussion despite the multiple layers of cognitive and transcripts as well.) Academic focus words for this les-
linguistic processes at work and the legitimacy of their son were the following: derogatory, stereotype, conno-
ideas, which can prevent their participation in whole-­ tation, slur, and stigmatize.
group discussion.
Recognizing students' positionalities and how they
support their perspectives is essential to navigating Research context
controversial topics. Weedon (1997) found that stu-
dents' positionalities on a topic are continually shifting. This unit was part of the WG Weekly units, and not a
As such, roles (e.g., who speaks, the topic/content of subject-­specific unit such as Social Studies or Science;
their utterance, and how it is received) and who has the as such, students engaged in this topic in more than
power are in constant circulation (Ferreira, 2022). one content area throughout multiple days. In a typical
In this paper, we seek to identify students' roles in course of this Word Generation Weekly lesson, students
the classroom discourse environment, their shifts, and were introduced to the topic and relevant vocabulary
the power and privilege associated with those shifts. by the language arts teacher. During math, students
Our study contributes to the body of literature by an- were asked to solve and discuss a problem relevant
alyzing how students embody and move between di- to this topic such as calculating how much new jerseys
alogic roles as they engage with controversial topics, would cost and how much profit would be made. Next,
and how they develop as critical speakers and thinkers students were introduced to a science-­based exercise
in the process. Specifically, the current study examines about this topic (i.e., understanding the difference be-
seventh-­and eighth-­grade students' whole-­classroom tween implicit and explicit behaviors and attitudes.)
discussions of a controversial topic across four class- Then, students debated the topic in their social studies
rooms and explores the following research question: classroom, where they were asked to choose and sup-
How do early adolescents take on and shift discursive port one of the following positions: (a) the team should
roles and power as they participate in discussions about not change its name; (b) the team should change its
a controversial topic? name; or (c) a new, “create your own” position. At the
conclusion of the unit, students wrote a “Take a Stand”
essay in which they were instructed to argue their
M ETHO DS position(s), use supporting evidence and reasoning,
and incorporate focus words in their response. This typ-
Participants and selection ically occurred in the language arts classroom, return-
ing to the beginning of the unit, and allowing students
Data are drawn from a large experimental study involv- multiple opportunities to learn about this topic through
ing fourth-­grade through seventh-­grade classrooms in integration and synthesis of various peers' and discipli-
the Northwestern United States (Snow et al., 2009). In nary experts' perspectives on the topic.
 |

19362706, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaal.1289 by CochraneArgentina, Wiley Online Library on [30/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AL-­A DEIMI and BAUMANN    45

While classroom discussion data from the larger of what was enacted. Each transcript was further ana-
WG program were obtained using audio recordings, lyzed after watching a second time to identify participant
a small sub-­sample of classrooms in the intervention roles within the discussions. Transcripts were coded first
group from whom consent was obtained were video- through initial coding, with multiple rounds of focused
taped, thereby allowing for more in-­depth analysis. In coding to identify the roles and themes (Saldaña, 2013).
this study, we focus on videos from four classrooms Roles emerged first, and then based on observations of
that were part of the intervention group (see Table 1). those in the roles, we could determine how they negoti-
We analyzed seven videos of classroom discussions of ated power shifts. General observations from the record-
one topic across four classrooms. Discussions were se- ings demonstrated the aspects of students' personalities
lected for analysis based on the presence of interactive and engagement, as revealed through and agreed upon
discourse among teachers and students. Those with no during discussions between the authors. Both authors re-
whole-­classroom student talk, such as when students viewed the notes to identify mis-­categorizations and con-
worked independently, or those with teacher-­initiated firm participant roles. In addition, to better understand the
instructions for small-­ group activities, were excluded frequency of each role, we calculated the percentage of
from analysis. occurrences given the total number of student utterances
Data analyzed in this study were drawn from three across all transcripts, thereby providing context for both
districts across two states in the Northeastern United the type and frequency of each role.
States: the two eighth-­grade teachers (Ms. Lawrence
and Ms. Rainer; all names are pseudonyms) taught
in different districts within the same state, while the R ESULTS
seventh-­grade teachers (Ms. Johnson and Ms. Clarke)
taught in a different state in the same middle school. All Roles of engagement
participating schools in the WG study, including those
analyzed here, were in economically under-­resourced We organized the seventh and eighth graders' roles
and culturally diverse areas. This sample included two during discourse into data-­driven categories that de-
debates on the topic, three vocabulary discussions, one lineate how each student contributed to the talk over
reading discussion, and one discussion of questions the course of the discussion (Table 2). Though each
about the topic. Four discussions were drawn from Ms. teacher taught the unit at a different time (with the ex-
Rainer's classroom, while the other three came from the ception of Ms. Johnson and Ms. Clarke, who taught the
remaining three teachers. There were between 15 and unit simultaneously), we found the same roles present
19 students in each classroom, though some students in each classroom but developed differently.
in Ms. Johnson's classroom were also in Ms. Clarke's Though students' roles were dynamic (discussed in
classroom (Table 1). the Themes section), one prevalent role we observed
was one of power and dominance (i.e., a primary
role). We noted the prevalence of these by calculating
Data analysis the percentage of utterances that were categorized
as each role across all transcripts. Primary roles ac-
Videos were analyzed and annotated using anecdo- counted for 12% of all student talk, and denoted stu-
tal comments and thematic content analysis (Braun dents who often initiated and sustained discussions.
& Clarke, 2006). Thematic content analysis refers to We assigned this category when students spoke fre-
“identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) quently, either with or without citing textual evidence
within data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79). To prepare, to support their claims, and often in response to an
the authors considered examples and videos from previ- open-­ ended question by the teacher. This can be
ous work for coding to define student roles. One author demonstrated through social power or cultural status
watched each video in the allotted sequence and recorded (Johnson, 1997; Pierce & Gilles, 2022); those with pri-
interactions between participants, creating full transcripts mary discussion roles sustained the talk by frequently

TA B L E 1 Participant information.

Number of Number of
Month Teacher Grade students videos analyzed Discussion type
November Ms. Rainer 8th 19 4 Introduction/vocabulary discussion; vocabulary
discussion; reading discussion; debate
February Ms. Lawrence 8th 19 1 Debate
March Ms. Johnson 7th 15 1 Vocabulary discussion
March Ms. Clarke 7th 19 1 Question discussion and review
 |

19362706, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaal.1289 by CochraneArgentina, Wiley Online Library on [30/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
46    AL-­A DEIMI and BAUMANN

TA B L E 2 Engagement roles, descriptions, examples, and prevalence.

Role Description Characteristics Example Prevalence

Primary Students who often initiated and sustained Frequent talk, either with or without Daniel, Excerpt A 11%
discussions evidence to support claims
Secondary Students whose contributions aligned with Elaborated talk; evidence and reasoning Luis, Excerpt G 12.5%
and supported those in the primary that support primary students' talk
roles
Tertiary Participation mostly limited to playful quips, Talk that elicits laughter, often in Raymond and Steven, 7%
surface-­level contributions, or sarcasm response to others' contributions Ms. Lawrence
Periphery Few claims made; not central to discussion Claims are often not well-­substantiated Renee, Excerpt B 10%

sharing their opinions and perspectives (e.g., cul- structure, teacher facilitation, and the topic at hand
tural and social power) during whole-­ classroom and (2) students can take multiple and dynamic (i.e.,
discussions. not stable) roles to elevate their voices through holding
Those in the secondary role contributed in ways power in the discussion.
that aligned with and supported those in primary roles.
Students who assumed a secondary role (12.5% of the
talk) did not dominate the talk nor did they initiate dis- Role shifts
cussions; however, their responses often furthered the
talk through citing evidence and providing reasoning Students' roles of engagement in the discussion
that supported students in primary roles. seemed to shift based on the talk structure in the in-
Students assigned the tertiary role participated dividual classrooms. Notably, while Ms. Clarke and
in the discussion, though their input tended to be Ms. Johnson taught several of the same students in
through playful quips, surface-­ level contributions, the same school, their facilitation styles offered dif-
and occasional sarcasm. For example, one student ferent support structures. Ms. Johnson used lectur-
might repeat part of the speaker's contribution but in ing to review and introduce the topic while Ms. Clarke
an exaggerated way to make others laugh. Unlike the used turn-­and-­talks, whole-­group discussion with a
primary speakers, students positioned in a tertiary “talking ball” to denote the speaker, and a video to
role did not dominate the talk and their contributions engage students with the topic. For example, Daniel
remained limited to responding to other students' con- and Renee were in both classrooms but participated
tributions. Their contributions accounted for approxi- differently. Daniel spent the most time talking of any
mately 7% of the talk. student in Ms. Johnson's classroom and showed high
Students who engaged in the periphery role did not engagement throughout the discussion (see Excerpt
play a central role in the discussion, though they did par- A), while in Ms. Clarke's classroom, Daniel addressed
ticipate by sharing their ideas. They did not often make the large group with surface-­ level interactions. He
original claims (primary), support primary students' claims directly addressed the teacher in the first few min-
with evidence or reasoning (secondary), or engage in utes of the recording to provide the location of the
quips (tertiary). Though they contributed to approximately Washington Team, a definition, and a sentence using
10% of the classroom discussions, these students' a vocabulary word. His only other interactions in the
claims were not always well argued or well reasoned. video were difficult to discern because he worked in a
Other roles include those that are non-­participatory in small group to answer closed-­ended questions posed
whole-­class discussions, and students who strive for a by Ms. Clarke. In Ms. Johnson's classroom, he held a
positionality do not fulfill it completely. These, and other primary role, whereas in Ms. Clarke's classroom, he
utterances that were not content-­focused and thus not took on a periphery role.
codable, accounted for approximately 60% of the ut-
terances in our data. In our analysis, we focus on the Daniel: I would not change the name because maybe
primary, secondary, tertiary, and periphery roles. See it symbolizes something that the native Americans
Table 2 for a summary of roles and examples. had or how they fought. The native Americans had
to fight for their land and stuff. The [team] had to
fight for their respect.
Themes Ms. Johnson: Right. And that's why names like the
Chiefs and Indians, even the Seminoles are okay, be-
In addition to these roles, we also found two emergent cause they show their strength. Indian Braves were
themes related to how students engage with controver- warriors and symbolizes their strength. But the word
sial topics: (1) students' roles shift depending on lesson [former team name] was used kind of like the N word
 |

19362706, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaal.1289 by CochraneArgentina, Wiley Online Library on [30/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AL-­A DEIMI and BAUMANN    47

against African Americans to make them feel bad, Ms. Johnson: National Football League, the organiza-
it was used as a term that was not supposed to be tion that runs all the football teams in the country.
respectful or a nice term. That's the issue with the
name, and it does not really mean that any more… Shaley: I agree [with keeping the former team
the name has sort of gone out of use, but it used to name], it honors the [former team name] because
be very common. The question is whether or not they (unintelligible).
should change it because the name was originally Nolan: I agree. In the video we saw that he likes the
offensive. Should they change it to something like the name.
Washington Indians or Washington Warriors? Ms. Clarke: Who's he?
Daniel: No, because it could mess up a lot of things. Nolan: The speaker, it makes him feel like it repre-
Ms. Johnson: What? sented the Native Americans and how hard they
Daniel: If you change their name, they will have to get played.
new uniforms and might start losing a lot of games; Ms. Clarke: Does anyone have the opposite view?
Ms. Johnson: Or they might start winning a lot of Renee: I agree with Shaley because if like, they should
games. Who knows? change their name because other people probably
Daniel: I would not take a shot at it. think that it's racist and they get really (unintelligible).

This is one example of Daniel's interactions in Ms. Excerpt B illustrates Renee's periphery role in that she
Johnson's classroom. He held a primary role through- only provided surface-­ level statements or clarifying
out the discussion by asking clarifying questions, add- questions. In Excerpt C, Renee engaged in a primary
ing onto and challenging others' contributions, and role as she challenged Shaley's answer to the question.
providing his own opinions. Conversely, in Ms. Clarke's She had more information to contribute and therefore
classroom, Daniel spoke to provide basic information. made a stronger case for her argument. Her role shift
His participation was limited to the onset of the record- could indicate her confidence in how the activity was
ing, and a few seconds-­ long bursts within his small facilitated, as the topic was explored in two classrooms
group. Daniel's participation shifted from a primary role around the same time.
to a periphery role, potentially due to the teacher's fa- Daniel and Renee's engagement roles appeared
cilitation of the topic. different based on the talk structures in place. Ms.
Renee's participation and roles also differed depend- Johnson's use of a lecture format with loosely estab-
ing on the talk structures. In Ms. Johnson's classroom, lished speaking norms, teacher-­ oriented nature, and
her utterances were topical which signified Renee's initiate–­respond–­evaluate discussion (Mehan, 1979)
engagement in a periphery role (see Excerpt B). denoted a clear participation hierarchy in which stu-
Conversely, in Ms. Clarke's classroom, she engaged dents who took on primary roles benefitted the most by
with other students to demonstrate comprehension of having more time and opportunities to verbally process.
the topic, shifting to a primary role (see Excerpt C). Those with periphery roles such as Renee may not
have had the opportunity to participate or, when they
Ms. Johnson: Tons of women change their names did, may have felt uncomfortable engaging in depth.
every year when they get married, what's the big However, students with periphery roles may have more
deal for a football team? opportunities to participate in student-­centered struc-
Renee: That's a football team, it's different. tures such as those in Ms. Clarke's classroom, with
Daniel: It's a lot different. They'll have to rebuild their multiple opportunities to speak with peers before shar-
whole stadium, take everything down from the sta- ing out. Enabling students with periphery roles such as
dium that says [former team name], it'll take too Renee to engage with other students may move her
much money. toward a more present and participatory role, as seen
Ms. Johnson: The NFL has plenty of money. in Excerpt C.
Daniel: Yeah, but teams, they have a certain amount of In both settings, the students who took on primary
money that they use for certain stuff. positionalities controlled the conversation and may
Ms. Johnson: All these other teams changed their have made it more difficult for the periphery roles to find
logos? their voices. Teachers' moves such as those seen in
Daniel: That's MLB [Major League Baseball], that's not Ms. Johnson's and Ms. Clarke's classrooms, including
the same turn-­and-­talks and use of a physical object to denote
Ms. Johnson: NFL has more money than baseball. the speaker, enabled students to shift their participation
Daniel: Baseball players make more money because and engagement in a given role.
of course the MLB's gonna get more money. Overall, students' roles shifted based on the dis-
Ms. Johnson: Not the players, the league. Alright, any cursive environment of the classroom. Classrooms
last closing comments on this? with more structured speaking opportunities or open-­
Renee: What does NFL mean? ended follow-­up questions, such as the debate in Ms.
 |

19362706, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaal.1289 by CochraneArgentina, Wiley Online Library on [30/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
48    AL-­A DEIMI and BAUMANN

Lawrence's class and the reading discussion with Ms. sides. Each student was able to state and support their
Rainer, allowed for more primary and secondary roles opinion.
to surface and shift. Conversely, classrooms with non-­
dialogic or writing foci such as those observed in Ms. Kelley: Most likely they are watching them because
Clarke's class allowed for more periphery and second- they are the state team and I do not think it matters
ary roles to emerge and remain. about the name, but most of them do not want to
rewrite the name and history.
Luis: They aren't watching them for a name, but a lot
Multiple and dynamic roles of people grew up watching the [team]. Why would
they change it?
Not only did students' roles shift, but students also Rhea: They will not care then.
held multiple and sometimes competing roles over the Kelley: You're changing history because you are
course of a discussion. Over the course of the four changing the name and the whole way people think
discussions led by Ms. Rainer, Luis and Kelley shifted about them.
roles on a regular basis. On the first day of discus-
sion, Luis demonstrated a primary role (see Excerpt Though both Kelley and Luis were considered primary
D); in subsequent days, however, he alternated be- roles, she, and to a lesser degree Rhea, spoke as from
tween a less-­primary role and a secondary role (see the culture of power, seeming not to recognize the
Excerpt E). culturally dominant positionality they espoused. Luis'
In Excerpt D, Ms. Rainer asked for a definition of power in the conversation was diminished as a result.
a stereotype on the first day and Luis, a member of This pattern of upholding culturally dominant positional-
the Latinx community, responded with the following ity and power through talk is further illustrated as Kelley
anecdote. cemented herself in the primary role. Luis' answers in-
dicated his shift to a secondary role as others began to
Luis: He's [cousin] El Salvadorian. support Kelley's positionality, responses and contribu-
Ms. Rainer: Do you think that if he is Mexican, … do tions as the unit progressed (see Excerpts F and G).
you think he'd want to…is there anything wrong with
being Mexican? What do people associate with it? Ms. Rainer: Are students at your school stigmatized by
Luis: No. It's just, there's a lot of things. They think the kind of clothes and electronics they have?
“oh, you crossed the border. You make me a taco, Kelley/Luis: Yes.
burrito.” Sam: Some people wear different clothes or clothes
Ms. Rainer: How does that make you feel about your that do not match.
culture? Kelley: Some people wear UGGs and North Face.
Luis: You feel bad. I remember one time me and Luis: If they do not have the latest fashion. If you wear
my cousin went to the library… They said, “Hey your hat a certain way, you are Black. There's a guy
Mexican!” who lives on the hill…
Ms. Rainer: Do you think that if the same situation hap- Ms. Rainer: Do you think anything can be done about
pened, what would happen? the stigma behind what people wear or the electron-
Luis/Nasir: They would get in trouble. ics they have?
Kelley/Luis: Yes.
Luis often was the first to speak or interrupted oth- Kelley: Upgrade your phone and get new clothes.
ers, effectively controlling the discussion climate with Ms. Rainer: School uniforms?
his interactions. As a member of a historically under- Kelley: NO! They can still tell.
represented population, he used his social and cul- Luis: She said no.
tural positioning to move into a primary role, adding
to his perceived power in the discussion as primary Kelley: In paragraph 2, it says they argue it is not meant
role while deferring to the culture of power of white- to offend or stigmatize than [other teams].
ness. Contrarily, another prominent member of the Rhea: That's one Chief in one tribe in all the tribes of
class (Kelley) held a periphery role in the discussion. America. The other teams you named say it's more
Her initial participation appeared to position her as respective to Native Americans?
someone who needed others to strengthen her ideas Abdel: If more Native Americans did not like it, would
because she could not speak to the cultural naviga- not they go to the NFL and complain.
tion of historically underrepresented groups through Luis: When Rhea said it was one leader in one tribe,
the world. Her role evolved into a more authoritative there are lots of tribes and lots of fans. What if a
position as the unit progressed. couple of the tribes are fans? Oh my God, here!
In Excerpt E, the primary role was shared between [Camille grabs the microphone from him and gives
Kelley and Luis as they engaged in a debate on opposite it to Kelley].
 |

19362706, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaal.1289 by CochraneArgentina, Wiley Online Library on [30/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AL-­A DEIMI and BAUMANN    49

Kelley: The [team] have had their name for a long time, Steven focused on their own performances rather than
and if they did not like it back then, they would have moving the debate forward. This interaction could also be
said something. seen as a quasi-­tertiary role as both students indirectly
Camille: [Unintelligible]. supported each other's arguments by using sarcasm and
Sam: Back to what Kelley said, that was back then short, terse remarks to engage.
when people were more stereotyped. Now is the Overall, students' shifting roles in their style of en-
future. We're moving along, trying to be with less gagement in critical and controversial discussions can
stereotypes. demonstrate the fluidity of power. Students who shifted
Kelley: Back in the day when there were a lot more from periphery roles like Kelley to a more primary role
Native Americans, they probably would have found demonstrated how their positionality within cultures of
it offensive then. If you are moving in history, you are power was considered more significant than others.
not going to go back and say it was offensive. Other students, like Luis, shifted from more primary
roles to roles with limited speaking. A shift in role in this
In Excerpt G, Camille seized the microphone from Luis manner can indicate obstacles in following an argument
to give to Kelley as he began speaking. This literal or co-­creating with the group, due to their limited so-
grab for power demonstrated a transition from Luis and cial and cultural power as historically underrepresented
Abdel's positionalities as historically underrepresented students (see Table 1). Those who grappled for the
students to Kelley's primary role as a white female same dialogic position such as Raymond and Steven
student. seemed to perpetuate the culture of power and focus
In addition, multiple students competed for one en- more on advancing their own position rather than co-­
gagement role. During the debate in Ms. Lawrence's constructing knowledge to further the argument.
classroom, teammates (i.e., students who debated on In addition, dialogic role negotiation can demon-
the same team) Raymond and Steven both took on a strate unequal power displays by the participants.
primary role, while opposing team member Mason For example, Mason's attempts to integrate into the
tried to bid for a primary role and faltered. For example, discussion with Raymond and Steven were denied,
Raymond took on a primary role when he chided a mem- indicating Raymond and Steven's co-­starring primary
ber of the opposing team for not having evidence ready roles held more power and influence within the debate.
and repeatedly stated, “you can't say something offen- Also, Kelley's talking over Luis as she shifted into a pri-
sive and say it's good.” Raymond consistently spoke out mary role signaled her taking control of the dialogue,
against Mason as he tried to assume a stronger role. subjugating Luis to a less-­powerful role from his pre-
Simultaneously, Steven assumed a primary role in vious primary role (see Excerpt G). Luis's protests to
his interactions with Raymond and Mason. He was con- this role were unacknowledged, continuing to uphold
sistent in his back-­and-­forth banter to determine weak- unequal displays of power as roles were negotiated.
nesses in the other side's argument and challenged each Overall, as students participated in the discussions in
piece of evidence they brought forth. In one part of the de- each classroom, they took on multiple shifting and dy-
bate, Steven introduces a statement from former Senator namic roles as they engaged with controversial issues.
Harry Reed to rebut and talk over Mason's statement that Teacher facilitation and perceived notions of power
the Washington Team's name honored Indigenous peo- based on culture and social standing supported stu-
ple. Steven's statements were a catalyst which created dents' participation (or lack thereof) in the dialogue.
notable banter between himself, Raymond, and Mason to
assert himself and his position in a favorable way. As the
students talked over one another, this display of power D I SCUSSI O N A ND I M PLI CATI O NS
demonstrated the dominant traits of strong opinions and
high amounts of discursive time. In early 2022, the Washington Team changed its
Mason tried to negotiate his opinions and stance name to the Washington Commanders due to the
through social dominance but was ultimately unsuc- racist connotations of its previous name (Franklin &
cessful. Steven and Raymond consistently challenged Chappell, 2022). Years prior, middle school students
Mason's attempts to obtain power through different as- in this study engaged in a dialogic environment cen-
pects of argumentation. His negotiatory bids were pres- tered on understanding and unpacking this contro-
ent but he did not appear to have the strong evidence or versial topic. We found students took up many roles
argument of a primary role to successfully attain that role. depending on their personalities, engagement with
In addition, the competition between Raymond and the topic, and personal investment in and knowledge
Steven for the same role served to maintain each person's about the topic—­that is, whether they had “skin in the
debating position instead of advancing the argument. This game.” There were students who wanted the first and
non-­dialogic pattern may not be considered academically last word on any topic (primary roles); those who sup-
productive. Rather than building on each other's argument ported them by bolstering their views with evidence
to co-­create a cohesive knowledge base, Raymond and or reasoning (secondary roles); students who retorted
 |

19362706, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaal.1289 by CochraneArgentina, Wiley Online Library on [30/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
50    AL-­A DEIMI and BAUMANN

with quips or sarcasm (tertiary roles); those who en- of the high cost and branding. Similarly, Luis in Excerpt G
gaged in the discussion though their responses did did not agree with Kelley that changing the name would
not always deepen the conversion (periphery roles); rewrite fans' perspectives of the Washington Team, de-
and students who did not contribute verbally, either spite the teacher's navigational strategies.
because they processed information by listening, or These excerpts provide examples of divergent dia-
because their attention was divided (non-­ speaking logue, where consensus is not expected, or at least, it
roles). Although these roles were not stable through- is not the goal of the discussion (Golding, 2013). Rather,
out the discussions, role shift can identify how stu- the outcomes are that students will “think for themselves
dents' thinking about the controversial question with others” (Lipman, 2003, p. 96), which whole-­class
changes throughout the discussion. discussions about controversial topics precisely afford
We also found students who engaged in dialogues given that students will be exposed to multiple and di-
about a controversial topic take on different roles as their verse perspectives (Golding, 2013) and will be provided
knowledge evolves (see Table 1). This finding echoes the space to co-­construct their own thinking through talk.
Goffman's (1981) notion of footing and O'Connor and
Michaels' (2007) analysis of role shifting within partici-
pation frameworks in classroom discussions. Students CO NCLUS I O NS A ND FUTUR E
can shift between and among roles or grapple for a po- D I R ECTI O NS
sition to demonstrate discursive power and privilege,
leading to some opinions receiving more elevation While the academic benefits of engaging in dialogic dis-
than others. These students can uphold or support the cussions are numerous (Al-­Adeimi & O'Connor, 2021;
status quo rather than challenge it. In addition, some Nystrand et al., 2003; Reznitskaya, 2012), students
voices may be silenced and therefore may feel unsup- who dialogically engage in controversial discussions
ported or powerless in a rapidly shifting and highly opin- can further develop their understanding of issues that
ionated dialogic environment (Byrners & Hillis, 2018; are part of the wider cultural discourse, whether or not
Pace, 2019). Feelings of being minimally supported can these issues are personally relevant to them. While our
keep students from contributing, therefore serving as a sample is limited to seven discussions in four class-
gatekeeper to engage in further understanding. rooms, the data presented in this study show students
An essential component of dialogic talk is its equal were eager to engage in this controversial topic, and
power relations among teachers and students (O'Connor assumed roles that reflected their own level of engage-
& Michaels, 2007). In considering the teacher–­student ment and knowledge of the topic.
relationship, students' ideas come to the forefront while Classroom teachers could benefit from recogniz-
the teacher takes on a facilitation role. When present, ing students' (shifting) roles in discussion as a way to
this environment can allow students to share freely, promote multiple perspectives and knowledge devel-
without fearing they will be shut down or evaluated for opment. By recognizing how students can co-­construct
their response (as the “E” in IRE denotes). However, knowledge, teachers can lay a foundation for unraveling
students' enactments through roles and positionalities potential misunderstandings and building critical thinking
as observed through the culture of power, social, and skills. They can ask open-­ended questions or provide
cultural norms can limit or support their participation scenarios for further discussion, thereby enacting the
(Evans, 1996; Pierce & Gilles, 2022). principles of dialogic talk. These contributions can en-
While students take on and negotiate different roles as courage primary roles to revise their thinking, secondary
they engage in talk about controversial topics, the ques- roles to generate their own thinking, and tertiary roles to
tion remains whether their talk was productive. One way to consider other aspects of the discussion more seriously.
examine whether students' talk was academically produc- Future studies could examine how teachers facilitate
tive is to examine whether students made epistemic prog- discussions of difficult or controversial topics in whole-­
ress (Golding, 2012) as a result of talk. Golding notes that classroom settings while also helping students make col-
we make “epistemic progress if our current beliefs, con- lective epistemic progress (Golding, 2013). In addition,
ceptions, justifications, or theories are better than those given the current political climate that limits teacher agency
previously held” (2012, p. 680). However, in the context of over the topics they are permitted to discuss, future re-
controversial topics, where consensus cannot always be search should examine how such conversations are nav-
reached, collective epistemic knowledge should be judged igated by students and teachers from culturally dominant
differently (Golding, 2013). In all the excerpts examined, versus historically underrepresented backgrounds, and
while students were able to share their views and engage how they are linked to students' learning outcomes.
with other perspectives, they did not reach a specific an-
swer, nor did they achieve collective consensus, given ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
that they retained their positions on the topic. For exam- The research reported here was supported by the
ple, in Excerpt B, Daniel remained unconvinced that the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
NFL would be willing to change the team's name because Education, through Grant R305F100026 to the Strategic
 |

19362706, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaal.1289 by CochraneArgentina, Wiley Online Library on [30/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AL-­A DEIMI and BAUMANN    51

Education Research Partnership as part of the Reading Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the
for Understanding Research Initiative. classroom. Harvard University Press.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing
classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied
C O N F L I C T O F I N T E R E S T S TAT E M E N T Linguistics, 1(2), 137–­168.
None. Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Deliberative dis-
course idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the class-
ORCID room and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27,
283–­297.
Jennie Baumann https://orcid. Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A.-­M., Lerkkanen, M.-­K., &
org/0000-0002-7395-285X Rasku-­Puttonen, H. (2018). Quality of educational dialogue and
association with students' academic performance. Learning
REFERENCES and Instruction, 55, 67–­79.
Al-­Adeimi, S., & O'Connor, C. (2021). Exploring the relationship be- Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., &
tween dialogic teacher talk and students' persuasive writing. Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom dis-
Learning and Instruction, 71, 101388. cussion on students' high-­level comprehension of text: A meta-­
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychol- analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740–­764.
ogy. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–­101. Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003).
Byrners, R. S., & Hillis, M. R. (2018). Creating an environment for Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of
civil discourse in the classroom. AILACTE Journal, 15, 35–­50. unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2),
Chapin, S. H., & O'Connor, C. (2007). Academically productive talk: 135–­198.
Supporting students' learning in mathematics. The Learning of Ochoa, G. L., & Pineda, D. (2008). Deconstructing power, privilege,
Mathematics, 69, 113–­128. and silence in the classroom. Radical History Review, 102,
Claire, H., & Holden, C. (2007). The challenge of teaching controver- 45–­62.
sial issues. Trentham Books. O'Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (2007). When is dialogue ‘dialogic?’.
Crocco, M., Halvorsen, A.-­L., Jacobsen, R., & Segall, A. (2018). Human Development, 50(5), 275–­285.
Less arguing, more listening: Improving civility in classrooms. O'Connor, C., & Snow, C. (2018). Classroom discourse: What do we
Phi Delta Kappan, 99(5), 67–­71. need to know for research and for practice? In M. F. Schober, D.
Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of dis-
in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational course processes (pp. 315–­3 42). Routledge/Taylor & Francis
Review, 58, 280–­298. Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/97813​15687​384-­17
Dooley, K. (2009). Intercultural communication: Building under- Pace, J. L. (2019). Contained risk-­ taking: Preparing preservice
standing together. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, teachers to teach controversial issues in three countries.
52(6), 497–­506. Theory and Research in Social Education, 47(2), 228–­260.
Dunn, A. H., Sondel, B., & Baggett, H. C. (2018). “I don't want to Pierce, K. M., & Gilles, C. (2022). Examining silenc(ing) in literature
come off as pushing an agenda”: How contexts shaped teach- discussion groups. Linguistics in Education, 68, 1–­13. https://
ers' pedagogy in the days after the 2016 presidential election. doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2021.100963
American Educational Research Journal, 56(2), 444– ­476. Rapanta, C., & Christodoulou, A. (2019). Walton's types of argu-
Elizabeth, T., Anderson, T. L. R., Snow, E. H., & Selman, R. L. mentation discourse as classroom discourse sequences.
(2012). Academic discussions: An analysis of instructional Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 36, 1–­15. https://doi.
discourse and an argument for an integrative assessment org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100352
framework. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), Ray, R., & Gibbons, A. (2021). Why are states banning critical race
1214–­1250. theory? Brookings Institution. https://www.brook​ings.edu/blog/
Evans, K. S. (1996). Creating spaces for equity? The role of posi- fixgo​v/2021/07/02/why-­are-­state​s-­banni​ng- ­criti​cal-­race-­theor ​y/
tioning in peer-­led literature discussions. Language Arts, 73(3), Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Clarke, S. N. (2015). Introduction:
194–­202. Talk, learning, and teaching. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan,
Ferreira, A. (2022). The micro-­politics of classroom talk: Tracking & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through talk
students' positions on race, place and privilege. Classroom (pp. 1–­12). American Educational Research Association.
Discourse, 13(3), 293–­311. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463​014.​ Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use
2021.1975552 during literature discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65(7),
Franklin, J., & Chappell, B. (2022). The Washington Football Team's 446– ­456.
new name isthe Washington Commanders. https://www.npr. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers
org/2022/02/02/10773​6 5060/​washi​ngton ​- ­c omma​nders​-­footb​ (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
all-­team-­new-­name Sedova, K., Sedláček, M., Švaříček, R., & Majcík, M. (2019). Do
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder. those who talk more learn more? The relationship between
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press. student classroom talk and student achievement. Learning and
Golding, C. (2012). Epistemic progress: A construct for understand- Instruction, 63, 101217.
ing and evaluating inquiry. Educational Theory, 62(6), 677–­693. Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowl-
Golding, C. (2013). We made progress: Collective epistemic prog- edge of academic language among urban middle school stu-
ress in dialogue without consensus. Journal of Philosophy of dents. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4),
Education, 47(3), 423–­4 40. 325– ­3 44.
Johnson, E. (1997). Cultural norms affect oral communication. New Stout, C., & Wilburn, T. (2022). CRT map: Efforts to restrict teach-
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 70, 47–­52. ing racism and bias have multiplied across the US. Chalkbeat.
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehi- https://www.chalk​beat.org/22525​9 83/map-­c riti​c al-­race-­theor​
cle for developing young adolescents' thinking. Psychological y-­legis​latio​n-­teach​ing-­racism
Science, 22(4), 545–­552. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching,
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed). Cambridge learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge University
University Press. Press.
 |

19362706, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaal.1289 by CochraneArgentina, Wiley Online Library on [30/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
52    AL-­A DEIMI and BAUMANN

van der Veen, C., Dobber, M., & Oers, B. V. (2018). Engaging chil-
dren in dialogic classroom talk: Does it contribute to a dialogi-
How to cite this article: Al-­Adeimi, S. &
cal self? In The dialogical self theory in education (pp. 49–­63).
Springer. Baumann, J. (2023). Roles of engagement:
Vygotsky, L. M. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. Analyzing adolescent students' talk during
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory controversial discussions. Journal of Adolescent &
(2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishers. Adult Literacy, 67, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaal.1289
AUTHOR BIOGR APHIES

Shireen Al-­Adeimi is an assistant professor at

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
USA; email: [email protected].

Jennie Baumann is a doctoral candidate at

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
USA; email: [email protected].