Enacting cultural literacy as a dialogic social practice: the role of provisional language in classroom talk

Tolerating ambiguity: navigating multiple perspectives

The concept of tolerance of ambiguity, originally developed by Frenkel-Brunswik (1948), is a diverse concept that may variously refer to a set of attitudes or even to a biologically based trait (Furnham and Marks, 2013). Tolerating ambiguity is explicitly mentioned, but not defined, in relation to work on effective and appropriate interaction in intercultural situations, or ‘intercultural competence’ (Deardorff, 2006; Bertelsmann Stiftung and Fondazione Cariplo, 2008). In both cases it is referred to as a positive attitude towards cultural diversity, but with subtle differences in its use. For Bertelsmann Stiftung and Fondazione Cariplo (2008), it refers to an openness towards uncertainty, while for Deardorff (2006) it captures an attitude of curiosity and discovery. Tolerating ambiguity is implicitly referred to in Oxfam’s (2015) Curriculum for Global Citizenship in relation to the skill of managing complexity, while engaging with multiple perspectives is an important part of PISA’s 2018 global competence assessment (OECD, 2020).

Perhaps the clearest exploration of the concept can be found in the RFCDC that promotes the concept of tolerance of ambiguity as an attitude towards uncertain situations and issues that are subject to multiple interpretations (Barrett et al., 2018a). Such an attitude enables individuals to sit comfortably with the possibility of multiple perspectives and to accept the lack of a clear-cut resolution or ‘correct’ answer. According to the Council of Europe’s definition, tolerance of ambiguity involves five main aspects: recognising and acknowledging that a situation or issue might be subject to multiple perspectives and interpretations; recognising and acknowledging other people’s perspectives as equal to one’s own; accepting complexity, contradiction and a lack of clarity; having a willingness to work with incomplete or partial information; and having a willingness to tolerate and deal constructively with uncertainty (Barrett et al., 2018a). The democratic behaviours displayed by learners exhibiting this attitude are explicated in the validated and scaled descriptors (Barrett et al., 2018b). According to this scale, those demonstrating a basic level of tolerance of ambiguity engage well with other people who have a variety of different perspectives and can temporarily suspend judgements about other people. At the intermediate level, individuals are comfortable in unfamiliar situations, deal with uncertainty positively and constructively and work well in unpredictable circumstances. At the advanced level, individuals actively wish to have their ideas and values challenged, and enjoy tackling ambiguous problems and complicated situations. This conceptualisation of tolerance of ambiguity, which celebrates difference and alternative perspectives, aligns with the idea of cultural literacy as a dialogic social practice in which multiple perspectives are navigated (Maine et al., 2019).

The notion of a ‘dialogic social practice’ references the important work of Street (1984), who questioned what he termed ‘autonomous’ models of literacy which prioritised a set, cultural notion of what it means to be ‘literate’. In his work, Street (1984) considered the marginalised voices that were overlooked, as more dominant cultural norms were prioritised. Importantly he challenged the acquisition of ‘literacy’ as something fixed and print-based. Following a lead from Street (1984), in an earlier article (Maine et al., 2019), we applied a similar logic to the notion of ‘cultural literacy’, calling into question the notion that culture is fixed and monologic. Rather, we described a ‘dialogic social practice’, recognising that the relationships between people and their worlds are reciprocal and subjective. Further, Bakhtin (1981) argues that we are always in dialogue with what he calls the ‘superaddressee’, the idea of a voice and possible response which extends any argument infinitely. Theoretically useful, these ideas are challengeable when ‘real’ dialogues are encountered, as issues of power inevitably limit some voices and prioritise others. Furthermore, educational policies influencing subject teaching in schools, particularly in England, have more recently championed ‘knowledge’ over softer life-long learning skills (Young et al., 2014).

Navigating multiple perspectives within a dialogic space of possibility

The shared space within which different perspectives can be created and explored has been termed ‘dialogic space’ (Wegerif, 2007, 2010). Within this space, the ‘dialogic gap’ between different perspectives is key to meaning making (Wegerif, 2011: 182). This space allows for the exploration of possible ideas without the need for conclusion, and it can be termed a ‘dialogic space of possibility’, a term capturing ‘the fluid and exploratory potential of the space between speakers’ (Maine, 2015: 20). Viewing a dialogic space as a space for possibility thinking highlights the desirability of a metaphorical safe space for trying out ideas which are not bound by solution-seeking goals.

The dialogic space of possibility can also be seen as a stance reminiscent of Keats’s concept of ‘negative capability’, which he first described in 1817 (in Keats, 2002), and clearly speaks to the idea of tolerating ambiguity. For Keats, negative capability is ‘when man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact and reason’ (Keats, 2002: 41–2). Keats’s idea of negative capability also points to the creative dimension of tolerating ambiguity; according to Keats, creative genius requires open-mindedness and the ability to be comfortable experiencing uncertainty as one navigates different perspectives (Wolfson, 2015). While the stance or disposition might be desirable, our observations of classroom discussion lead us to consider more closely how this is realised in actual language.

Provisional language

The role of particular linguistic markers has been a key focus of study for dialogic engagement (see, for example, Boyd and Kong, 2017; Maine, 2015; Soter et al., 2008; Mercer et al., 1999; Wegerif et al., 1999). Initially identified as language that would indicate reasoning and high levels of comprehension, more recent studies have shown the importance of hypothetical language in opening up spaces for dialogue. In their work investigating exploratory talk, Mercer et al. (1999) and Wegerif et al. (1999) identify linguistic markers that indicated that exploratory talk was happening. Initially focusing on because, I think and I agree, they extended this list to include modal language (such as could and might) as they noticed that it also served to introduce reasoning in student talk. In their study investigating the potential of different small reading group contexts, Soter et al. (2008) notice that certain ‘reasoning words’ were discourse features present where students engaged in high levels of comprehension. They include may be/might/maybe in addition to could/would in their list. Boyd and Kong (2017) go further in grouping these different reasoning words according to their function in reasoning, drawing out the potential of modal words. In addition to introducing reasoning, they find that these words enable students to speculate, and teachers to use them specifically to invite speculation. They describe the words might/maybe/could as the ‘language of possibility’, a term also used by Maine (2015: 60) when she describes how children used ‘possibility markers’ to put forward ideas that are not definite hypotheses, but more fluid and provisional. As Boyd et al. (2019: 27) find, the use of these modal words ‘reduces commitment’ to a hypothesis in case it is not well received by others, but it also offers ideas as hooks on which to build inter-subjectivity.

Research has shown that provisional or vague language such as maybe, might, could and perhaps can have a twofold purpose: to introduce reasoning, but to do so in a way that still allows for a possibility that the suggestion might not be supported by others (Maine, 2015, 2020; Rowland, 2007). It is the latter purpose – the imbuement of a sense of tentativeness, hesitancy and flexibility – that is of interest in this study. Similar findings emerged from Rowland (2007), where he investigates the use of ‘vague language’ and hedging in maths lessons. Using such words enabled a tentative movement towards hypothesis, and, echoing Boyd and Kong (2017), he also describes this vague language as ‘conveying a speaker’s lack of full commitment to a proposition under consideration’ (Rowland, 2007: 87), or that the hypothesis is not ‘complete’ (Rowland, 2007: 82). These words then are not only concerned with the suggestion of ideas, but also with engagement with another person to whom they might relate. Being happy to allow ideas to be provisional and contestable is to be able to tolerate ambiguity, teasing and gently prodding at ideas as collective meaning making is achieved.

Boyd et al. (2019) emphasise the importance of the environment where this language enables rich thinking. They argue that such language needs to occur within contexts where a dialogic value orientation (Aukerman and Boyd, 2020) signals that student ideas are important. In their study, they particularly considered how teachers can signal this, but clearly such an environment also leads to a valuing of student ideas by each other, allowing for multiple perspectives to be included in the joint endeavour of co-construction.

However, dialogue occurs within classroom spaces that are both messy and contradictory. As such, dialogue may be viewed as a problem space, riven with tensions, dilemmas and struggle (Gurevitch, 2000; Lefstein, 2010; Lefstein and Snell, 2014). In particular, inequalities around ‘voice’ make the concept of democratic and dialogical pedagogies far from straightforward. The realisation of voice is central to dialogue that is rich in perspectives. Problematising idealistic approaches to dialogic pedagogy, Lefstein et al. (2020) discuss the particular conditions and struggles associated with the realisation of voice. They identify four conditions for exercising voice: ‘(a) opportunity to speak; (b) expressing one’s own ideas; (c) on one’s own terms; and (d) being heeded by others’ (Lefstein et al., 2020: 111). Underpinning each of these is an element of struggle: ‘the struggle to capture and maintain the floor, the struggle between student and classroom language, and the struggle to have one’s ideas recognized and addressed, among the sea of competing voices’ (Lefstein et al., 2020: 112). In our analysis, we illustrate the processes involved in the struggle for voice, and analyse the conditions that facilitate it as students learn to navigate multiple perspectives in dialogue.

Analysis

In the first example from School A (13–14-year-olds), the teacher is discussing the dialogue objective for the lesson: to listen to what others have to say and to empathise with divergent viewpoints. The teacher clearly explains the importance of suspending judgements – first, when listening to what each other has to say and, second, in relation to empathising with the character in the film by suspending judgements about them:

The teacher uses the verb try several times. The first use is in progressive tense in the first-person plural, emphasising the collective effort that is being made. The next use is in imperative, appealing to the whole class, but also to the individual effort of each student. The last use is again in the first-person plural, signalling the collective ethos that needs to be achieved. By switching the agency from the collective ‘we’ to ‘you’, to the vague others and somebody, the teacher uses a powerful rhetoric which shows the students how perspectives can be switched. The instructions are ended with the possessive phrase our own life, which connects the thinking process with the students’ own experiences.

Later in the lesson, the teacher encourages one student to suspend his judgement about the baboon during a whole class discussion about the film:

The provisional nature of this interaction is evident in both the teacher’s questioning and the student’s responses. Using provisional language enables Connor to respectfully engage with the teacher’s alternative point of view, while reducing his commitment to the idea. The provisional probably that Connor uses in response to the teacher’s question is negated by not, but it still leaves a space open to change one’s mind. The question tag ‘is he?’, which the student uses to defend his original position, is further introducing uncertainty and provisionality. Throughout the extract, the teacher is using questions, which, in essence, are provisional in their nature. In the teacher’s last turn, she uses two consecutive imperatives to guide the student. The first imperative, ‘You’ve got to suspend’, clearly suggests a temporary suspension of normative thinking based upon acquired knowledge, while the second imperative, ‘Be empathetic’, focuses on how to achieve this temporary knowledge and, consequently, judgement suspension. This is again followed by questions inviting the student to consider such an empathetic attitude. Connor answers maybe, leaving space to recognise the different perspectives on this issue. Throughout the exchange, both parties instinctively use provisional language to facilitate respectful interaction with each other’s ideas, rebalancing rather than resolving their differences, leaving the space open to alternative interpretations.

The next example explores how provisional language is both actively encouraged and modelled by the teacher during a whole class discussion in School B (9–10-year-olds). At this point in the lesson, the class are making sense of the film narrative before moving on to discuss the cultural theme of ‘belonging’:

During the small group discussion that follows this instruction, the students take up a range of this provisional vocabulary to introduce new ideas within a metaphorical safe space (note: square brackets denote overlapping speech):

At the start of the extract, Norah’s commitment to empowering voice is evident as she encourages participation by an open question, ‘Who wants to start?’, which is immediately followed by directly inviting Owen to start (6). However, at this juncture, Owen does not wish to participate, and he exercises his right to remain silent. Norah then invites Maddox to contribute (8), and he asks a question to clarify the task (9). Inviting others to contribute reflects the underlying democratic ethos of the classroom, which is supported by agreed rules and procedures for talk. Here we see how their group talk is remotely mediated by their teacher as they appropriate and use these rules and procedures.

The use of provisional language enables students to respectfully challenge ideas while engaging with people who have a variety of points of view and to deal with uncertainty in a positive and constructive manner. Maddox starts with a definite statement containing obviously (11), which Rachel powerfully contradicts with ‘But just wonder why’ (12). Using this language enables Rachel to respectfully challenge Maddox’s alternative point of view. This is immediately taken up by Maddox, who responds with maybe, one of the key words suggested by the teacher, transforming the whole mode of this conversation into the possibility mode. However, his idea is not picked up by the group, and Rachel and Norah both speak at the same time, overlapping with Maddox. Norah then successfully gains the floor (15), opening up the space further for reflection. She introduces a new perspective with ‘I think I have an idea’, which is followed by maybe, framing the proposition as an alternative. Maddox again tries to offer an alternative idea with ‘But maybe’, which is not picked up by the rest of the group (18). Here we find a basic struggle for voice, namely the right to speak, as both Maddox and Norah compete for the floor. Norah takes leadership of the group at this point, supported by Rachel’s back-channelling (16, 20), and she continues her idea, once again overlapping with Maddox without directly addressing him (19). Norah continues exploring this idea in a provisional manner, and she uses the modal might, and the vague like and or something (19, 21).

Maddox finally gains the floor and expresses his idea (22). The use of maybe expands the dialogic space, allowing Maddox to express his own idea on his own terms. However, in so doing, Maddox does not refer to Norah’s previous idea; he simply adds another possibility into the dialogic space for the group to consider. The result is that Norah’s voice falls out of the conversation. Owen then speaks for the first time (23), politely challenging Maddox’s idea through questioning by using modal would. Rachel starts to elaborate, but Norah overlaps with Rachel to acknowledge Owen’s idea (25). Underpinned by a democratic classroom culture that empowers voice, Norah’s response provides encouragement to Owen to participate. Being heeded by others is an important condition for exercising voice.

Rachel continues to struggle to gain the floor (26) as Maddox interjects using the provisional maybe to develop Owen’s idea (27). In the turns that follow, the struggle to be heard and taken seriously by the rest of the group is evident, as Rachel continues to vie for the floor, until she eventually succeeds and introduces a new question about why the baboon was playing the cornet (28–33). Norah interrupts Rachel (36) to offer a possible answer to her question using the provisional might. Owen respectfully challenges this idea using the provisional could when he suggests that ‘they could’ve sent him with a big box full of supplies’ (37), before Maddox invites further elaboration on Owen’s idea (38). In the turns that follow, Rachel, Maddox and Norah compete for the floor, before Owen asks another question that drives the dialogue forwards, exploring the idea of the cornet introduced by Rachel (44). Rachel answers this question (46) before Norah, sensing that the group are moving off-task, refocuses the conversation on the task at hand (48). At this juncture, their language is no longer provisional, as Maddox then returns to his original point that he made at the beginning (50), and, in the turns that follow, the group converge, agreeing that the baboon is sad because he is lonely and misses Earth (51–4).

In a subsequent whole class discussion, the teacher models advanced democratic behaviour as she demonstrates her enjoyment of tackling this ambiguous question using possibility thinking:

At the same time, the teacher is celebrating the importance of alternative perspectives by highlighting their role in extending her own thinking.

Later in the lesson, following small group discussions about where ‘home’ is for the baboon, students feedback their ideas to the whole class:

In stating what he thinks, Maddox compares his idea to Norah’s idea, albeit in a slightly misinterpreted way. The teacher defends Norah’s idea as a valid possibility by highlighting how she dealt with uncertainty in a positive and constructive manner using the language of possibility.

Summarising the whole class discussion, the teacher links back to the use of provisional language, and demonstrates how this has enabled the sharing of ideas:

Grounding these ideas in evidence – see the ‘reasoning’ words because, ‘cos, so, so then, and then, unless used by the students in connection with the provisional language in the above extracts – enables the students to deal with uncertainty in a positive and constructive manner.