Literature Discussions as Mangles of Practice - Sociological Theories of Emergence and/in Dialogic Learning Events

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by dhado

This report argues that productive literature discussions in specific grade levels can be understood as “mangles of practice,” in which planned and contingent forces combine to generate emergent, self-organizing transformations of ongoing social activity. The studied discussions reflect unpredictable interactions among individual, social, cultural, and material agents, yielding dynamic knowledge production. Findings support dialogic pedagogy by showing how robust dialogic talk enables inquiry, reasoned argumentation, evaluation of complex actions and decisions, and development of principled social, cultural, and moral resources for living one’s life.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages33

Reading Time1 h 23 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Research questions

Dialogic learning and inquiry-based discourse

Literature Discussions as Mangles of Practice: ISSN: 2325-3290 (online) Sociological Theories of Emergence and/in Dialogic Learning Events George Kamberelis William McGinley Colorado State University University of Colorado Alyson Welker Colorado State University Abstract In this report, we argue that some of the most productive and edifying kinds of literature discussions among certain ages/grade levels may be best understood as “mangles of practice” (Pickering, 1995). Mangles of practice involve the coalescence of planned and contingent forces, and they produce emergent or self-organizing transformations of ongoing social activities, as well as unpredictable outcomes or products. Indeed, the discussions we studied had these characteristics. They often involved both planned and contingent actions and reactions by individual, social, cultural, and material agents and agencies. As such, they were emergent phenomena about which we could seldom predict what precise collections, collisions, and collusions of actions and reactions would occur within them or what the effects of these collections, collisions, and collusions would be. In spite of (or more likely because of) their unpredictability, these discussions were extremely dynamic knowledge-producing activities. Given this social fact, we think our findings contribute significantly to understanding the lineaments and potentials of dialogic pedagogy, which deepens students’ learning and development. More specifically, when teachers successfully prompt and engage students in more robustly dialogic talk that promotes text-to-life connections, life-to text connections, linkages to nonschool knowledge (like that of popular culture), etc., then students often reap a wide variety of benefits with respect to their abilities to engage in genuine inquiry, to reason and argue for particular interpretations, to evaluate complex human actions and decisions, and to develop principled social, cultural, and moral equipment for living their own lives. George Kamberelis is professor and director of the School of Education at Colorado State University. He received [a Ph.D. in](a Ph.D. in) Education and Psychology and an [M.S. in](M.S. in) Psychology from the University of Michigan, an [M.A. in](M.A. in) Religious Studies from the University of Chicago, and [a B.A. in](a B.A. in) Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal | [http://dpj.pitt.edu](http://dpj.pitt.edu) [DOI: 10.5195/dpj.2015.69 | Vol. 3](DOI: 10.5195/dpj.2015.69 | Vol. 3) (2015) A98 Philosophy and Religion from Bates College. Professor Kamberelis’ research is resolutely interdisciplinary, integrating intellectual perspectives from anthropology, psychology, linguistics, sociology, cultural studies, and literary studies. His work also embodies a deep commitment to theory (especially critical social theory) . Over the years Professor Kamberelis has conducted research and taught courses on critical social theory, interpretive research methods, theoretical foundations of reading and writing, literacy and society, classroom discourse, and media literacy. William McGinley is a professor of Literacy Studies at the University of Colorado-Boulder. He received a [Ph.D. in](Ph.D. in) Literacy Education from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, an [M.A. in](M.A. in) English Education from Idaho State University, and [a B.A. in](a B.A. in) English from St. Joseph’s College. Professor McGinley’s research addresses various issues related to learning and teaching literacy land literature. He has examined how theories of emotion and sentimentality in democratic politics can inform literary understanding. He has investigated how teachers-in-preparation draw upon improvisational narrative models to organize and understand their initial teaching experiences. And he has conducted research on how middle school students deploy the creative power of writing and visual art to envision a sense of shared community

FAQs

What does the report mean by “mangles of practice” in literature discussions?

It refers to situations where planned and contingent forces coalesce, producing emergent or self-organizing transformations of social activity with unpredictable outcomes.

Which agents are involved in the student-led discussions studied in the report?

The study focuses on both human and non-human agents involved in student-led, student-generated discussions about literature.

What learning benefits does the report associate with more robustly dialogic classroom talk?

It connects dialogic talk to students’ abilities to engage in genuine inquiry, reason and argue for interpretations, evaluate complex decisions, and develop social, cultural, and moral capacities for life.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by dhado