How do in-service teachers reason about syntactic functions in group dialogues? A Norwegian perspective

This study investigates how Norwegian in-service teachers (N = 16) reason about syntactic functions during group dialogues. Situated within current efforts to strengthen domain-specific pedagogy in linguistics, the study examines in-service teachers’ use of reasoning strategies when discussing syntactic problems. Particular attention is given to the persistence of the semantic question method (SQM), which in-service teachers (abbrev. ISTs) found difficult to abandon despite instruction and curricular guidance. We consider how long-established classroom habits, the cognitive demands of linguistic argumentation, and the rapid pace of group interaction contribute to reliance on familiar but invalid rules of thumb. A second focus is the ISTs’ tendency to identify syntactic functions without providing supporting arguments, despite the task’s explicit requirement for justification. We explore how limited mastery of linguistic tests, insufficient training in exploratory dialogue, and face-threatening dynamics may inhibit requests for clarification or challenge. The analysis also addresses ISTs’ partial but inconsistent use of linguistic tests, alongside misconceptions that may reflect the restricted space allocated to formal grammar within teacher education. Finally, we explore cases where ISTs adjust the SQM to fit expected outcomes, revealing yet another example of how this ingrained habit constitutes a problem as the ISTs’ preferred choice when investigating syntactic functions.