;;Discussion is the Laboratory;;: A Cross-Comparative Analysis of Four Secondary ELA Teachers' Discussion-Leading Practices

discussion;Education;Social Sciences;Educational Studies

Bomphray, AlistairCohen, David K ;

University of Michigan

关键词: discussion;    Education;    Social Sciences;    Educational Studies;   

Others  :  https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/146021/arbomphr_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

瑞士|英语

来源: The Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship

【 摘 要 】

Thinkers ranging from John Dewey to Mikhail Bakhtin have theorized the importance of discussion to deep understanding, providing a rich foundation for the growing body of empirical support for the claim that English Language Arts students who participate in discussions learn more than students who do not have this opportunity. Despite abundant theoretical and empirical support for discussion, discussions are rare in American classrooms. Though there are surely other reasons why discussions are so rare in practice, this study takes its cue from the belief that discussion’s high degree of difficulty combined with a lack of sufficiently integrated and multi-dimensional professional knowledge for leading discussions makes it a particularly challenging practice to teach and to enact.This study investigates and compares the discussion-leading practices of four 10th grade ELA teachers. I spent 3-4 weeks in each teacher’s classroom, collecting observational data. I conducted semi-structured interviews with teachers and students and stimulated recall interviews with teachers. I used constant comparative analysis (Strauss, 1987) to identify patterns across the four teachers.I found that leading discussions rests on the sustained enactment of broadly dialogic teaching practices that advance and are founded upon respectful relationships with students. Though the teachers differed in the specific practices they enacted, they were united by an orientation towards students that was deeply affirming of students’ intelligence and personhood, and an underlying ambition to share authority with students. Together, the teachers’ practices formed a pedagogically coherent tapestry that supported students’ capacities for text-based discussion. I also found that sometimes the teachers acted in ways that appeared monologic—and, thus, at odds with their orientations—but that a closer look revealed to be in keeping with their dialogic goals. Indeed, the teachers’ practices challenge the common notion that good discussions involve little to no teacher talk. To the contrary, I argue that not all teacher talk is monologic, particularly when that talking is responsive to the larger instructional context. The findings of this study suggest that the work of leading good discussions is inseparable from the work of establishing a classroom culture in which students feel respected as people and as thinkers and are positioned as meaning-makers. Additionally, the findings suggest that the monologic-dialogic binary does not sufficiently account for all of the pedagogically warranted variations on discussion that, if the teachers in this study are any indication, exist between the two poles. This has implications for teacher education and professional development efforts, and teacher assessment.