1887
Volume 13, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study investigates the increasingly common phenomenon of parental involvement in children’s education from a dialogic perspective. Drawing on video-recorded parent-child homework conversations in Italian families and adopting a conversation analysis-informed approach, the study analyzes how a value-laden cultural notion like ‘family-school partnership’ is given ‘dialogic existence’ through a variety of discursive practices. Specifically, it identifies four practices deployed by parents when supervising children’s homework: (1) making the teacher speak, (2) drawing parallels between family and school, (3) siding with the teacher, and (4) adopting a teacher-like evaluative stance. Beyond their specificities, all these practices reproduce the school’s institutional culture inside the home. It is argued that, through these practices, parents ‘do being involved’ in homework and implement a partnership based on shared values between family and school.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00150.col
2023-08-01
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bazzanella, Carla
    1993 “Dialogic Repetition.” InDyaloganalyse IV, ed. byHeinrich Loffler, 185 – 294. Tubingen: Max Niemayer. 10.1515/9783111332932‑032
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111332932-032 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennet, Sara and Nancy Kalish
    2006The case against homework: How homework is hurting our children and what we can do about it. New York: Crown.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blackmore, Jill and Kristen Hutchinson
    2010 “Ambivalent Relations: The ‘Tricky Footwork’ of Parental Involvement in School Communities.” International Journal of Inclusive Education14(5): 499–515. 10.1080/13603110802657685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802657685 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolden, Galina and Jeffrey D. Robinson
    2011 “Soliciting Accounts with Why-Interrogatives in Conversation.” Journal of Communication611: 94–119. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2010.01528.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01528.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolognesi, Ivana and Chiara Dalledonne Vandini
    2021 « La Correction des Devoirs à la Maison : Une Recherche Ethnographique avec des Mères et des Enfants en Italie. » La Revue Internationale de l’Education Familiale491 : 201 – 221
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Booth, Alan and Judith F. Dunn
    (eds) 1996Family-school Links. How Do They Affect Educational Outcomes?New York and London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bourdieu, Pierre
    1990The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9781503621749
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503621749 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bronfenbrenner, Urie
    1979The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Caronia, Letizia
    (ed.) 2021Language and social interaction at home and school. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.32
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.32 [Google Scholar]
  10. Caronia, Letizia and Chiara Dalledonne Vandini
    2019 “Assessing a (gifted) child in parent-teacher conference: Participants’ resources to pursue (and resist) a no-problem trajectory.” Language and Dialogue91: 125 – 148. 10.1075/ld.00035.car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00035.car [Google Scholar]
  11. Caronia, Letizia and Vittoria Colla
    2021 “Objects that matter: The hybrid and distributed agency in parent-assisted homework interactions.” Language and Dialogue11(1): 8–34. 10.1075/ld.00082.car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00082.car [Google Scholar]
  12. Caronia, Letizia, Vittoria Colla, and Ivana Bolognesi
    . Forthcoming. “When school language and culture enter the home: testing children as a ‘school-aligned’ parental activity.” Civitas Educationis.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Colla, Vittoria
    2022a Children’s Socialization, Involved Parenting, and the Construction of the Family-School Partnership in Everyday Family Interactions: A Study on Parent-Assisted Homework as a Morally Dense Educational Arena. PhD Dissertation, University of Bologna.
  14. 2022b ““Don’t complain and do it properly”: ‘Pedagogicalized parents’ and the morality of doing homework.” Rivista Italiana di Educazione Familiare20(1): 211–228. 10.36253/rief‑10579
    https://doi.org/10.36253/rief-10579 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cooper, Harris
    1989a “Synthesis of Research on Homework.” Educational Leadership47(3): 85–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 1989bHomework. White Plains, NY: Longman. 10.1037/11578‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/11578-000 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cooper, Harris, Jorgianne C. Robinson, and Erika A. Patall
    2006 “Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003.” Review of Educational Research76(1): 1–62. 10.3102/00346543076001001
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cooren, François
    2010Action and Agency in Dialogue: Passion, Incarnation and Ventriloquism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.6 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2012 “Communication Theory at the Center: Ventriloquism and the Communicative Constitution of Reality.” Journal of Communication621: 1 – 20. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2011.01622.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01622.x [Google Scholar]
  20. Cooren, François and Nicolas Bencherki
    2010 “How Things do Things with Words: Ventriloquism, Passion and Technology.” EncyclopaideiaXIV(28): 35–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Costa, Marina, Ana Paula Cardoso, Carla Lacerda, Ana Lopes, and Celeste Gomes
    2016 “Homework in Primary Education from the Perspective of Teachers and Pupils.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences2171: 139 – 148. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.047
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.047 [Google Scholar]
  22. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2012 “Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. Emotion in Interaction.” InEmotion in Interaction, ed. byAnssi Peräkylä, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 113–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  23. Drew, Paul
    1998 “Complaints about Trangressions and Misconduct.” Research on Language and Social Interaction31(3–4): 295 – 325. 10.1080/08351813.1998.9683595
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.1998.9683595 [Google Scholar]
  24. Drew, Paul and Elizabeth Holt
    1988 “Complainable matters: the use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints.” Social Problems35(4): 398–417. 10.2307/800594
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800594 [Google Scholar]
  25. Duranti, Alessandro
    1994From Grammar to Politics: Linguistic Anthropology in a Western Samoan Village. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1997Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511810190
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810190 [Google Scholar]
  27. Duranti, Alessandro and Elinor Ochs
    1990 “Genitive Constructions and Agency in Samoan Discourse.” Studies in Language14(1): 1–23. 10.1075/sl.14.1.02dur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.14.1.02dur [Google Scholar]
  28. Epstein, Joyce L.
    1986 “Toward an Integrated Theory of School and Family Connections.” Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, Report no. 3.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1990 “School and family connections: Theory research and implications for integrating sociologies of education and family.” InFamilies in Community Settings: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. byDonald G. Unger, and Marvin B. Sussman, 99–126. New York, NY: Haworth Press. 10.1300/J002v15n01_06
    https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v15n01_06 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1995 “School/Family/Community Partnerships. Caring for the Children We Share.” Phi Delta Kappan76 (9): 701–712.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2001School, Family and Community Partnerships. Preparing Educators and Improving Schools. Boulder (CO): Westview Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Forsberg, Lucas
    2009 Involved Parenthood: Everyday Lives of Swedish Middle-Class Families. Doctoral Thesis. Linköping University, Department of Child Studies. Linköping University, Linköping.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Goffman, Erving
    1955 “On face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes181: 213–231. 10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008 [Google Scholar]
  35. 1959Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 1981 “Footing.” InForms of Talk, ed. byErving Goffman, 124–159. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Goodwin, Charles
    2000 “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics32(10): 1489–1522. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  38. Gottzén, Lucas
    2011 “Involved Fatherhood? Exploring the Educational Work of Middle-Class Men.” Gender and Education23(5): 619–634. 10.1080/09540253.2010.527829
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2010.527829 [Google Scholar]
  39. Henderson, Anne T., and Nancy Berla
    1994The Family Is Critical to Student Achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Heritage, John
    1984aGarfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 1984b “A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 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]
  43. 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]
  44. 2013 “Epistemics.” InHandbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. byJack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 370–394. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2021 “Conversation Analysis: Practices and Methods.” InQualitative Research, 5th Edition, ed. byDavid Silverman, 223–242. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Heritage, John and Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly68(1): 15–38. 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hoover-Dempsey, Kathleen V., Angela C. Battiato, Joan M. T. Walker, Richard P. Reed, Jennifer M. DeJong, and Kathleen P. Jones
    2001 “Parental Involvement in Homework.” Educational Psychologist36(3): 195–209. 10.1207/S15326985EP3603_5
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3603_5 [Google Scholar]
  48. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. byGene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  49. Kohn, Alfie
    2006The homework myth. Why our kids get too much of a bad thing. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kralovec, Etta and John Buell
    2000The End of Homework: How Homework Disrupts Families, Overburdens Children, and Limits Learning. Boston: Beacon.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2001 “End Homework Now.” Educational Leadership58(7): 39–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Kremer-Sadlik, Tamar
    2019 “Ordinary Ethics and Reflexivity in Mundane Family Interactions.” Ethos47(2): 190–210. 10.1111/etho.12234
    https://doi.org/10.1111/etho.12234 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kremer-Sadlik, Tamar and Marilena Fatigante
    2015 “Investing in Children’s Future: Cross-Cultural Perspectives and Ideologies on Parental Involvement in Education.” Childhood22(1): 67–84. 10.1177/0907568213513307
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568213513307 [Google Scholar]
  54. Marsico, Giuseppina, Koji Komatsu, and Antonio Iannaccone
    (eds.) 2013Crossing Boundaries. Intercontextual Dynamics Between Family and School. Charlotte, NC: IAP.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Mehan, Hugh
    1979 “‘What time is it, Denise?’ Asking known information questions in classroom discourse.” Theory into Practice18(4): 285–294. 10.1080/00405847909542846
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00405847909542846 [Google Scholar]
  56. Mondada, Lorenza
    2016 “Multimodal Resources and the Organization of Social Interaction.” InVerbal Communication, ed. byAndrea Rocci, and Louis de Saussure, 329–350. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110255478‑018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255478-018 [Google Scholar]
  57. Montalbetti, Katia and Cristina Lisimberti
    2020 “Dal confine alla soglia. I compiti a casa tra scuola e famiglia.” Pedagogia Oggi11: 309–322.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Ochs, Elinor and Tamar Kremer-Sadlik
    2013 “The Good Enough Family.” InFast Forward Family. Home, work and relationships in middle-class America, ed. byElinor Ochs, and Tamar Kremer-Sadlik, 232–252. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Parodi, Maurizio
    2016Basta Compiti! Non È Così che Si Impara. Milano: Sonda.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Pillet-Shore, Danielle
    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]
  61. Pomerantz, Anita
    1986 “Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims.” Human Studies9(2–3): 219–230. 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  62. Pontecorvo, Clotilde, Vivian Liberati, and Camilla Monaco
    2013 “How School Enters Family’s Everyday Life.” InCrossing Boundaries. Intercontextual Dynamics between Family and School, ed. byGiuseppina Marsico, Koji Komatsu, and Antonio Iannaccone, 3–34. Charlotte, NC: IAP.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Popkewitz, Thomas S.
    2003 “Governing the Child and Pedagogicalization of the Parent. A Historical Excursus into the Present.” InGoverning Children, Families, and Education, ed. byThomas S. Popkewitz, Marianne N. Bloch, Ingeborg Moqvist, and Kerstin Holmlund, 35–61. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑08023‑3_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-08023-3_2 [Google Scholar]
  64. Sacks, Harvey
    1984 “On doing “being ordinary”.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 413–429. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language501: 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  66. Sandberg, Jörgen, and Haridimos Tsoukas
    2016 “Practice theory: What it is, its philosophical base, and what it offers organization studies.” InThe Routledge companion to philosophy in organization studies, ed. byMir Raza, Hugh Willmott, and Michelle Greenwood, pp.363–383. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1997 “Practices and actions: boundary cases of other-initiated repair.” Discourse Processes23(3): 499–545. 10.1080/01638539709545001
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545001 [Google Scholar]
  68. Sidnell, Jack and Tanya Stivers
    (eds) 2013The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Sterponi, Laura
    2003 “Account Episodes in Family Discourse: The making of morality in everyday interaction.” Discourse Studies5(1): 79–100. 10.1177/14614456030050010401
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030050010401 [Google Scholar]
  70. Stevanovic, Melisa
    2013 Deontic Rights in Interaction. A Conversation Analytic Study on Authority and Cooperation. Academic dissertation, Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.
  71. 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]
  72. Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig
    (eds) 2011The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674 [Google Scholar]
  73. Walker, Joan. M. T., Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey, Darlene R. Whetsel, and Christa L. Green
    2004Parental Involvement in Homework. A Review of Current Research and its Implications for Teachers, After School Program Staff, and Parents Leaders. Harvard Family Research Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Wenger, Etienne
    1998Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803932
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932 [Google Scholar]
  75. Wingard, Leah
    2006 “Parents’ Inquiries about Homework: The first Mention.” Text and Talk26(4–5): 573–596. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.023 [Google Scholar]
  76. Wingard, Leah, and Lucas Forsberg
    2009 “Parent Involvement in Children’s Homework in American and Swedish Dual-earner Families.” Journal of Pragmatics411: 1576–1595. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.09.010 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00150.col
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