Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Delivering and acknowledging assessments are the most recurrent institutional activities occurring in parent-teacher conference. This paper reports data from a mother-teacher conference concerning a gifted child. We show how participants’ practices to accomplish and receive assessment in the report-assessment phase of the event: (a) display their relative epistemic and deontic rights, (b) are oriented to participants’ institutional relevant identities, and (c) project or even enact different and quite opposite assessment trajectories. We contend that struggles in assessing the child display participants’ different stances: teachers’ ‘normalizing’ and ‘group oriented’ trajectory vs. the mother’s orientation toward ‘doctorability’ and pressure for individualized treatment. Although typically occurring between routine-case oriented institutions vs. idiosyncratic-case oriented clients, such a struggle displays also the ‘paradoxical injunctions’ that frame teachers’ everyday work: adopting a ‘group-oriented’ perspective while at the same time being accountable for an individualized approach.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Addimando, Loredana
    2013 “I comportamenti controproducenti dei genitori a scuola: un’analisi sulla soddisfazione e l’autonomia lavorativa degli insegnanti” [Counterproductive behavior of parents at school: a satisfaction analysis and teacher’s autonomy in working life]. Psicologia della Salute2: 33–51. 10.3280/PDS2013‑002004
    https://doi.org/10.3280/PDS2013-002004 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Carolyn and Jayne Keogh
    1995 “Accounting for Achievement in Parent-Teacher Interviews.” Human Studies18(2–3): 263–300. 10.1007/BF01323213
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01323213 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bergen, Clara and Tanya Stivers
    2013 “Patient Disclosure of Medical Misdeeds.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior54(2): 221–240. 10.1177/0022146513487379
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146513487379 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bronfenbrenner, Urie
    1979The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1986 “Ecology of the Family as a Context for Human Development: Research Perspective.” Developmental Psychology22(6): 723–742. 10.1037/0012‑1649.22.6.723
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brody, E. Linda and Carol J. Mills
    1997 “Gifted Children whit Learning Disabilities: a Review of the Issues.” US National Library of Medicine30(3): 282–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Caffi, Claudia
    1999 “On Mitigation”. Journal of Pragmatics31(7): 881–909. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00098‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8 [Google Scholar]
  8. Caronia, Letizia and Chiara Dalledonne Vandini
    2018 “Voicing a Gifted Child: Reported Speech as Resource for doing Epistemic and Moral Work in Parent-teacher Conference.” Unpublished paper presented at68th Annual ICA Conference – Voices, Prague, CZ.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cedersund, Elisabet and Lennart G. Svensson
    1996 “A “Good” or a “Bad” Student: A Study of Communication in Class Assessment Meetings.” Language and Education10 (1): 132–150. 10.1080/09500789608666705
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500789608666705 [Google Scholar]
  10. Christenson, Sandra and Susan M. Sheridan
    2001Schools and Families. Creating Essential Connection for Learning. New York, London: The Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Drew, Paul and John Heritage
    1992Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Epstein, L. Joyce
    1983Friends in School. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Epstein, L. Joyce and Caren K. Salinas
    2004 “Partnering with Families and Communities. A Well-organized Program of Family and Community Partnerships Yields many Benefits for Schools and their Students.” Schools as Learning Community61(8): 12–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fabbri, Maurizio
    2012aIl transfert, il dono, la cura. [The transfert, the gjft and the care]. Milano: Franco Angeli.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2012b “Ragioni d’alleanza, problemi di disalleanza: territori e servizi per l’infanzia fra cultura e controcultura.” [Reasons for alliance, problems of dis-alliance: territories and services for children between culture and counterculture]. InDis-alleanze nei contesti educativi [Dis-alliances in educational contexts], ed. byMariagrazia Contini, 63–75. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fraser, Bruce
    1980 “Conversational Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics4: 341–250. 10.1016/0378‑2166(80)90029‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2010 “Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging.” InNew Approaches to Hedging, ed. byGunther, Kaltenbock, Wiltrud, Mihatsch and Stefan Schneider, 15–34. Bingley, West Yorkshire: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 10.1163/9789004253247_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247_003 [Google Scholar]
  18. Garcia-Sanchez, Inmaculada and Marjorie F. Orellana
    2006 “The Construction of Moral and Social Identity in Immigrant Children’s Narratives-in-Translation.” Linguistic and Education17: 209–239. 10.1016/j.linged.2006.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gill, Virginia and Douglas W. Maynard
    1995 “On ‘Labeling’ in Actual Interaction: Delivering and Receiving Diagnosis of Developmental Disabilities”. Social Problems43(1): 11–37. 10.1017/CBO9780511607172.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607172.007 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodwin, Charles
    1994 “Professional Vision.” American Anthropologist96(3): 606–633. 10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goodwin, Charles and Marjorie H. Goodwin
    1992 “Assessments and the Construction of Context”. InRethinking Context. Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. byAlessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 147–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Granata, Anna, Ouejdane, Mejeri and Federica Rizzi
    2015 “Non è solo questione di cultura. Fattori di ostacolo e risorsa nella relazione famiglia-scuola dell’infanzia.” [Is not only a question of culture. Obstacles and resources in the family/childhood school relationship]. Rivista dell’Educazione Famigliare [Family education magazine] 1: 79–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Greenfield, M. Patricia, Blanca Quiroz and Catherine Raeff
    2000 “Cross-Cultural Conflict and Harmony in the Social Construction of the Child.” New Direction for Child and Adolescent Development87: 93–108. 10.1002/cd.23220008708
    https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23220008708 [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, John
    2004 “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analyzing Data.” InQualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, ed. byDavid Silverman, 223–245. London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2012a “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1): 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2012b “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1): 30–52. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heritage, John and Steven Clayman
    2010Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1002/9781444318135
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318135 [Google Scholar]
  28. Heritage, John and Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly68: 15–38. 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2006 “The Epistemics of Social Relationships: Owning Grandchildren.” Language in Society35(5): 677–705. 10.1017/S0047404506060325
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2012 “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. byJan P. De Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013 [Google Scholar]
  31. Howard, M. Kathryn and Sarah Lipinoga
    2010 “Closing down Openings: Pretextuality and Misunderstanding in Parent-Teacher Conferences with Mexican Immigrant Families.” Language and Communication30(1): 33–47. 10.1016/j.langcom.2009.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2009.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  32. Horvat, Erin, Elliot B. Weininger and Annette Lareau
    2003 “From Social Ties to Social Capital: Class Differences in the Relations between Home and School and Parents Networks.” American Educational Research Journal40(2): 319–351. 10.3102/00028312040002319
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040002319 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jefferson, Gail and John R. E. Lee
    1981 “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles-Telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter’.” Journal of Pragmatics5(5): 399–422. 10.1016/0378‑2166(81)90026‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(81)90026-6 [Google Scholar]
  34. Jefferson, Gail
    1984 “Notes on a Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgment Tokens ‘Yeah’ and ‘Mmhm’.” Paper in Linguistics17(2): 197–216. 10.1080/08351818409389201
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389201 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. ByG. H. Lerner, 13–23. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  36. Kim, M. Elizabeth, Susan M. Sheridan, Kyongboon Kwon and Natalie Koziol
    2013 “Parents Beliefs and Children Behavioral Functioning: The Mediating Role of Parent-Teacher Relationship.” Journal of Psychology51(2): 175–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kotthoff, Helga
    2015 “Narrative Constructions of School-Oriented Parenthood during Parent-Teacher-conferences.” Linguistics and Education31: 286–303. 10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lareau, Annette and Elliot B. Weininger
    2003 “Cultural Capital in Educational Research: A Critical Assessment.” Theory and Society32(5): 567–606. 10.1023/B:RYSO.0000004951.04408.b0
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RYSO.0000004951.04408.b0 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lawrence-Lightfoot, Sara
    2003The Essential Conversation: What Parent and Teachers can Learn from Each Other. New York: Random House.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. MacLure, Maggie and Barbara M. Walker
    2000 “Disenchanted Evenings: the Social Organization of Talk in Parent-teacher Consultations in UK Secondary Schools.” British Journal of Sociology of Education21(1): 5–25. 10.1080/01425690095135
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690095135 [Google Scholar]
  41. Maynard, Douglas W.
    1992 “On Clinicians Co-implicating Recipients’ Perspective in the Delivery of Diagnostic News.” InTalk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. byPaul Drew and John Heritage, 331–358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2003Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Maynard, Douglas W. and John Heritage
    2005 “Conversation Analysis, Doctor-Patient Interaction and Media Communication.” Medical Education39: 428–435. 10.1111/j.1365‑2929.2005.02111.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02111.x [Google Scholar]
  44. Milani, Paola
    2009 “La formazione e la ricerca in educazione familiare. Stato dell’arte in Italia” [Formation and research in family education. State of art in Italy]. Rivista Italiana dell’Educazione Familiare1: 17–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2012 “Sconfinamenti e Connessioni. Per una nuova geografia dei rapporti fra scuole e famiglie” [Crossing borders and connections. For a new geography of relations between schools and families]. Rivista Italiana di Educazione Famigliare1: 25–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Orletti, Franca
    2000La Conversazione Diseguale [The Unequal Conversation]. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Orletti, Franca and Marilena Fatigante
    2009 “La modulazione dell’agency nell’interazione in colloqui di consultazione pedagogica” [The agency modulation in the interaction in psychological consultation interviews]. InFenomeni di intensità linguistica [Phenomena of linguistic intensity], ed. byBarbara Gili Favela and Carla Bazzanella, 195–206. Firenze: Franco Cesati Editore.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Pfeiffer, I. Steven and Yaacov Petscher
    2008 “Identifying Young Gifted Children Using the Gifted Rating Scales-Preschool/Kindergarten Form.” Gifted Child Quarterly52(1): 19–29. 10.1177/0016986207311055
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207311055 [Google Scholar]
  49. Pillet-Shore, Danielle
    2001 “Doing pretty well: How Teachers Manage the Interactional Environment of Unfavorable Student Evaluation in Parent-Teacher Conference.” Unpublished Master’s thesis. Los Angeles: University of California.
  50. 2003 “Doing Okay: On the Multiple Metrics of an Assessment.” Research on Language and Social Interaction36(3): 285–319. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3603_03
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3603_03 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2012 “The Problems with Praise in Parent–Teacher Interaction.” Communication Monographs79: 181–204. 10.1080/03637751.2012.672998
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2012.672998 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2015 “Being a Good Parent in Parent-Teacher Conferences”. Journal of Communication65(2): 373–395. 10.1111/jcom.12146
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12146 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2016 “Criticizing Another Child: How Teachers Evaluate Students During Parent-Teacher Conference.” Language and Society45: 33–58. 10.1017/S0047404515000809
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404515000809 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pomerantz, Anita
    1986 “Extreme Case Formulation: A Way of Legitimizing Claims.” Human Studies9: 219–229. 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sacks, Harvey
    1974 “On the Analyzability of Stories by Children.” InEthnomethodology: Selected readings, ed. byRoy Turner, 216–232. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Schegloff, Emmanuel A.
    1996 “Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics.” InStudies in Anaphora, ed. byBarbara Fox, 437–485. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.33.14sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.14sch [Google Scholar]
  57. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2007b “Conveying Who You are: The Presentation of Self, Strictly Speaking.”. In. Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. ByJohn N. Enfield and Tanya Stivers, 123–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Subotnik, Rena, Paula Olszewski-Kubilius and Frank C. Worrell
    2011 “Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Proposed Direction Forward Based on Psychological Science.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest12(1): 3–54. 10.1177/1529100611418056
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056 [Google Scholar]
  59. Stevanovic, Melisa and Anssi Peräkylä
    2012 “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45(3): 297–321. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  60. Zanetti, Maria Assunta
    2012Bambini e ragazzi ad alto potenziale. Una guida per educatori e famiglie [Children and young with high potential. A guide for educators and families]. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error