PDF Discussion in the elementary classroom: How and why some ...

TheGeorgiaSocialStudiesJournal Spring2011,Volume1,Number1,pp.19-31 GeorgiaCouncilfortheSocialStudies

Discussionintheelementaryclassroom:Howandwhysome teachersusediscussion

LisaBrownBuchanan UniversityofNorthCarolinaGreensboro

Discussionisamultifaceted,invitationalclassroompracticethatpresentspossibilitiesforclassroom teacherstoengagelearnersinacademiccontentwhiledevelopingtheirdiscussionskills,deliberating socialandpoliticalissues,andpreparingsolutionstocommonproblems.Itprovidesademocratic locationforstudentstoconstructlearningtogetherandlearnfromeachother.Discussioncanbeused inmanydifferentwaysandwiththeyoungestschoolchildren.Currentscholarshiprelatedtodiscussion intheclassroomisprimarilysituatedwithinsecondaryeducation,providingauniqueopportunityfor developingresearchthatexploresdiscussioninelementaryclassrooms.Thisstudyuncovershowand whythreeelementaryteachersusediscussionintheclassroom,andhowdiscussionissimilarand differentinkindergarten,thirdgrade,andfifthgrade.

"That'ssomethingIwantmystudentstowalkawaywithisbeingabletothinkandchallenge

themselvesandchallengeothers."-Tess,thirdgradeteacher Schoolisaremarkablelocationforrichdiscussion,affordingcountlessopportunitiesfor youngpeopletoengageinshareddiscourse.Classroomdiscourseisacomplex,ever-changing systemthatincludesalldialogueintheclassroom(Cazden,1988).Oneformofclassroomdiscourse isdiscussion,whichisashareddialoguebetweentwoormoreindividuals;itmayincludemultiple perspectives,andmayormaynotincludetheclassroomteacher(Parker,2003).Tounderstandthe utilityofclassroomdiscussion,itiscriticaltobeginwithtraditionalclassroomdiscourse.Cazden (1988)discussestraditionalclassroomdiscourse;fromthere,shemovestodiscoursethatdoesnot fitthismold,andexamineshowdiscoursevariesacrossclassroomsandamongteachers.Oneofthe mostimportantprinciplesofCazden'sworkistheimpactofpeertalkintheclassroom.Sheposits thatpeerdiscourseduringschoolgivesstudentstheuniqueopportunitytoengageinacademic discourse.Theseverybasicprinciplesoftraditionalclassroomdiscourseprovideafoundationfor researchinclassroomdiscussions,demonstratingthepotentialforchildrentolearnbytalkingwith oneanother. Discussionhasrecentlybeenexaminedinsecondarysocialstudieseducation.Asamulti- dimensionalteachingandlearningtool,itdevelopsuniqueopportunitiesforstudentstoengagein classroomdiscourseaboutacademiccontentandcontroversialissueswhiledevelopingtheir discourseskills,learningtocreatesolutionstosharedproblems,andevenhoningtheirown positionstowardscontentiousproblems(Damico&Rosaen,2009;Henning,Neilsen,Henning,& Schulz,2008;Hess,2009;Larson,2000;Parker&Hess,2001).Itcreatesauniquelocationfor studentstodeveloptheirownideasandlearnfromeachother,whileengagingtheacademic content.Clearly,discussionisawidelybeneficialandpromisingclassroomstrategy.

19

TheGeorgiaSocialStudiesJournal

ConceptualFramework

Currenteducationalresearchrelatedtoteachingwithdiscussionisprimarilysituatedin secondarysocialstudieseducation(Hess,2002,2008;Hess&Posselt,2002;Stoddard,2010).For example,Hessexaminesitsutilitytoapproachanddeliberatecontroversialpublicissues(Hess, 2009).Althoughmuchofcontemporaryeducationalresearchaboutdiscussionislocatedwithin secondarysocialstudies,teachereducatorsarebeginningtoresearchitsuseinelementary classrooms.Thereisasmallamountofrecentresearchaboutteachingwithdiscussioninthe elementaryclassroom(Allen,1997;Beck,2003,2005;Chilcoat&Ligon,2000;Damico&Rosaen, 2009;McCall,2006).Theseprojectsareprimarilyconcernedwithstudyingindividualteachersand howtheyusediscussionintheclassroom,andnoneoftheseresearchendeavorsaddresshowitis similaranddifferentacrosselementaryclassrooms.Thisrepresentsagapintheliteraturerelated toteachingwithdiscussioninelementaryclassrooms.

Contemporaryscholarshiprevealsthediverseopportunitiesforteachingwithdiscussion. Teachingwithdiscussioncaninvolvemoreformaldiscussionstrategieslikeseminarsand deliberations(Beck,2003;Parker,2003)orlessformaldiscourseaboutsharedexperiencesand classroomactivitiesorwrittenandoralnarratives(Henningetal..,2008).Itcanbeusedtoteach academiccontent(Parker&Hess,2001),andfrequentdiscussionscanpromotetoleranceofothers (Beck,2003).Attimes,teachersmayevenusediscussiontodevelopshareddiscourseskills(Parker &Hess,2001).Becauseoftheopportunityforactiveparticipationandshareddialogue,discussion affordsalocationtofosterdemocracyintheclassroom(Allen,1997;Parker,2003;Rossi,2006). Currentscholarshipseemstorevealthediverseutilityofdiscussioninclassrooms,yetlessis knownabouthowteachersimplementit,particularlyteachersinelementaryeducation.

Throughsynthesizingtheliteraturerelatedtodiscussioninsecondaryandelementary classrooms,multiplebenefitsforusingdiscussionwithstudentsareidentified.Gooddiscussion urgesstudentstorecognizediverseperspectives,dialogueaboutabstractandmultilayered problemsthatarerelevanttotheirlives,participateinademocracy,learnfromothers'knowledge, andco-constructknowledgewithfellowclassmates(Beck,2003,2005;Brophy&Alleman,2009; Cazden,1988;Damico&Rosaen,2009).Thisseriesofexperiencescreatestheopportunityfor studentstolistentopointsofviewthataredifferentfromtheirownandevenseevarying perspectivesoncontroversialissues(Allen,1997;Beck,2005;McCall,2006).Studentswho participateinclassroomdiscussionsaremorelikelytomakeconnectionsoutsideofthedialogueto theirpersonallifeandcommunity(Hemmings,2000)andbecomeempoweredthroughsharingin theclassroomdialoguewithothers(Rossi,2006).Moreover,studentscandevelopciviccompetence astheytakepartinstructuredconversationswithothers(Hess,2009;Kelly,1989),andthroughthe process,activelisteningskillscanbehoned(Parker,2006).

Discussion,likeanyteachingstrategy,presentsobstacles.Atanygradelevel,teachersmust makedecisionsaboutwhatwillbediscussedwhenplanningforandimplementingdiscussionswith theirstudents(McCall,2006).Teachersteachdifferently.Evenwhenteachingthesamecontent,the questionsthatprecedediscussionsaredifferentfromteachertoteacher(Beck,2005;Chilcoat& Ligon,2000).Thedifferenceinthewaythatteachersteachdemonstratesthepotentialtoguide studentsintomeaningfulandempoweringdialogue,aswellasthedangerofsimplyrecappingfacts (Chilcoat&Ligon,2000).Furthermore,teachersmustdecideiftheywilldiscusstopicsthatare controversialandsensitive(Camicia,2008),andifso,iftheywilldisclosetheirpersonalpositionon publicproblems(Hess,2009).Thecomplexityofteachingwithdiscussiondemonstratesthe importanceofplanningforsuchopportunitiesandthinkingthroughwhatthefocusofthe discussionwillbe.Becauseofthecomplexityofclassroomdiscussions,spontaneousdiscussionsare oftenlessmeaningfulandengagingforstudentsthanintentionaldiscussionsthattheteacherhas preparedfor(Henningetal.,2008;Holden&Bunte,1995;Lockwood,1996).

20

L.B.Buchanan

Currentscholarshipaboutteachingwithdiscussiondemonstratesthatplanningand implementingdiscussionsbeginswiththeteacher(Lockwood,1996;Parker&Hess,2001).The teacher'sroleinutilizingclassroomdiscussionincludesassessingwhatstudentsknow(Bolgatz, 2005),andscaffoldingtheskillsthatstudentsneedtoentershareddialogueandremainengaged (Hess,2009;Kelly,1989).Ateachermustunderstandthecapacityofthestudentstoengagein dialoguewithothers.Teacherscanusediscussiontohelpdevelopstudents'understandingoflarger andmoreabstractconceptsbymakingconnectionsbetweencontentandbigideasduring classroomdiscussions(Bolgatz,2005).Moreover,theteachercanusediscussiontohelpdevelop students'understandingoflargerandmoreabstractconcepts.Whenteachersimplement discussion,learnershavetheopportunitytohoneexpertdiscussionskillsthroughrepeated participation(Flynn,2009;Parker&Hess,2001).

Throughexaminingeducationalscholarshipdevotedtoteachingwithdiscussionin secondaryeducationandthesmallbodyofcurrentliteraturerelatedtoelementaryclassroom dialogueanddiscussion,theneedforfurtherresearchrelatedtounderstandingdiscussioninthe elementaryclassroomisrevealed.Furthermore,therearenocurrentstudiesofelementary discussionthatlookwithinandacrossmultipleelementaryteacherstounderstandtheroleof discussioninspecificclassroomsandacrosselementaryclassrooms.Asonlyasmallnumberof studiesexaminewhyteachersusediscussionwithyounglearners,thereisanopportunityto furtherexploreitsutilityinelementaryclassrooms.Thisexploratorycollectivecasestudyexplores howandwhythreeelementaryclassroomteachersteachwithdiscussion.

ResearchMethods

Togainamoredetailedpictureofthethreeindividualteachers,anexploratorycollective casestudywasdeveloped(Creswell,2007;Merriam,2009;Patton,2002).Purposefuland conveniencesamplingwasemployedtoidentifythethreeparticipants(Maxwell,2005).Three separateboundedsystemswereexaminedwithinthisstudy:akindergartenteacher,athirdgrade teacher,andafifthgradeteacher(Merriam,2009;Yin,2003).Althoughthethreeboundedsystems werestudiedasunique,separatecases,thisstudyalsosurveysthreecasestounderstandtheuseof discussioninkindergarten,thirdgrade,andfifthgrade. ThestudywasconductedatasuburbanK-5elementaryschoolintheSoutheasternUnited States.Theschoolboastsmorethan40classroomteachersand800students,andhasconsistently beenrecognizedasmeetingachievementstandards.Thestudentbodydemonstratesincreasing ethnicdiversity,andthereisagrowingcommunityofEnglishLanguageLearners.Nearlyhalfofthe studentsreceivefreeorreducedmeals.12%ofthepredominantlyCaucasianandfemalefaculty haveearnedadvanceddegreesand9classroomteachersareNBCTcertified.Theparticipantswere recognizedashighlyeffectiveclassroomteacherswhofosteredstudent-centeredclassroomsand classroomdiscussions.Table1illustratesthethreeteachers'demographicdata.

21

TheGeorgiaSocialStudiesJournal

Table1.Teachers'DemographicData

Characteristic Currentgradelevel Yearsofclassroomteachingexperience Gender

Katherine Kindergarten

5-10 F

Tess 3

5-10 F

Faith 5

15-20 F

Agerange

50-60

30-40

40-50

Race

Caucasian Caucasian

Caucasian

Highestlevelofeducation

M.Ed.

M.Ed.

B.S.

Area(s)ofcertification NationalBoardPTS

Birth-K, Counseling Candidate

K-6,Gifted Education

Yes

K-6,Gifted Education Candidate

Katherineisanoutgoingandoutspokencareerkindergartenteacher.Katherine's

backgroundandexperiencesincounselingandearlychildhooddevelopmentinfluenceherteacher visionandinstructionalstrategies.Shesharedthatdiscussionwasalargepartofhergraduate coursework,andherundergraduateprogramstressedtheroleofconversationinchildren's languagedevelopment.Katherinestronglybelievesinlisteningtowhatchildrenhavetosay.She readilywelcomescurrentandformerparentsandcommunitymemberstocontributetoher classroom,anddiscussionismostfrequentlyusedinherclassroominregularwholegroupclass meetings.

Tessisanintrovertedandmotivatedcareerthirdgradeteacher.Herpriorexperiencesasa fifthgradeteacherandingiftededucationinfluenceherteachervisionandinstructionalstrategies. Asastudent,Tesswasveryquietandrarelyengagedinclassroomdiscussions.Extra-curricular experiencesprovidedanoutletforhertodevelopherdiscussionskillsandduringhergraduate work,shelearnedaboutusingSocraticseminars,whichshenowimplementsfrequentlyacross contentareas.InTess'class,studentsaremostoftenengagedinsmallgroupdiscussionsduring guidedreading.

Faithisacandidandcheerfulcareerfifthgradeteacher.Herpriorexperiencesasathird gradeandgiftededucationteacherhascontributedtoherideasaboutdevelopingclassroom opportunitiesforshareddiscourse.ItisimportanttoFaithtobeheardindiscussions.Asastudent, sheexperiencedlivelyclassroomdeliberationswithherfavoriteteacher,Mr.Costeo.Faithis particularlypassionateaboutcultivatingandsustainingdiscussionsinherclassroom,andshe enjoysusingcurrenteventsandcontroversialissuesasopportunitiesforengagingstudentsin deliberations.

Therearefiveresearchquestionsforthisstudy: 1. Doelementaryteachersusediscussion?How? 2. Whydoelementaryteachersusediscussion? 3. Howdoelementaryteachersusediscussioninsocialstudies? 4. Howisdiscussionsimilaracrosskindergarten,thirdgrade,andfifthgrade? 5. Howisdiscussiondifferentacrosskindergarten,thirdgrade,andfifthgrade? Theseresearchquestionsguidedthestudydesignandimplementation(Maxwell,2005;Yin,2003). Threequalitativeresearchmethodswereemployed:semi-structuredclassroomobservations, participantinterviews,andafocusgroup.Datacollectionbeganwithclassroomobservations.An observationprotocolfocusedonteacherbehaviorswascreatedtouseforclassroomobservations. Observationsincludedfieldnotesandresearcherbracketing(Creswell,2007;Spradley,1979).The observationswerefollowedbyparticipantinterviewsanddatacollectionconcludedwithafocus

22

L.B.Buchanan

group.Interviewandfocusgroupprotocolswereused.Theobservationsandresearcherbracketing informedthesubsequentparticipantinterviews.Participantinterviewswereaudio-tapedand transcribed.Afterlisteningtotheinterviewsandcreatinginductivecodes(Hatch,2002),focus

groupquestionsweredesignedandparticipantsengagedinafocusgroupdiscussion.Thefocus

groupwasalsoaudio-tapedandtranscribed.Thesemi-structureddesignoftheinterviewsand

focusgroupallowedthedatacollectionprocesstomovewiththeebbandflowoftheparticipants' discourse.Table2illustratestherelationshipbetweentheresearchquestionsandthedata collectionmethods(Maxwell,2005). Table2.CrosswalkofResearchQuestionsandDataCollectionMethods

ResearchQuestion

Observations Interviews FocusGroup

Doelementaryteachersusediscussion?How?

X

X

Whydoelementaryteachersusediscussion?

X

X

X

Howdoelementaryteachersusediscussionin

X

X

socialstudies?

Howisdiscussionsimilaracrosskindergarten,

X

X

X

thirdgrade,andfifthgrade?

Howisdiscussiondifferentacrosskindergarten,

X

X

X

thirdgrade,andfifthgrade?

Dataanalysisbeganwithinductivecoding(Hatch,2002),whereinitialcodesforthe

observations,interviews,andfocusgroupswereidentified.Afterwards,domainspecificanalysis

wasusedtocreatematricesforeachclassroomobservation,participantinterview,andthefocus

groupdiscussion(Spradley,1979).Thematricesdemonstratedtherelationshiporfunction

betweenthecodesandthemes,andallowedmetoorganizequotesandresearcherbracketingby

code.Afterdevelopingamatrixforeachpieceofdata,thesourcesweregroupedbyparticipantto

createaparticipantmatrix.Constantcomparativeanalysiswasusedtodevelopthemeswithineach

singlecaseandagaintoidentifysimilaranddifferentthemesacrossthethreecases(Glaser&

Strauss,1967;Stake,2006).Thedatawasinterrogatedtounderstandwhatwasnotsaidorseen;

thiscontributedtoamoredescriptiveaccountofhowandwhyteachersusediscussionsandwhat

differencesandsimilaritiesarepresentindiscussionsacrossgradelevels,uncoveringthepower

dynamicsthataffectedthethreeteachersandtheirteaching.Furthermore,asthestudydesign

continuallyreturnedtotheliterature,Iconsideredwhetherwhatwasseenandheardin

observations,interviews,andinthefocusgroupwasrepresentedinthebodyofrelatedliterature.

Thisprocesscontributedtotheoverallcredibilityanddependabilityoftheexploratorycollective

casestudy(Lincoln&Guba,1985).

Tominimizethreatstothetrustworthinessandcredibilityofthestudy,Ifrequently

returnedtoandrevisedthestudydesign.Additionally,usingthreedatacollectionsourcesallowed

fortriangulatingthedatasources,whichincreasedthetrustworthinessofthestudy(Glesne,2006;

Maxwell,2005).Becausetheroleoftheresearcheriscentraltothedesignandimplementationofa

researchstudy,Ipurposedtocontinuallyconsiderthepresenceofmyownexperiencesand

positionality(Glesne,2006;Lincoln&Guba,1985;Maxwell,2005;Patton,2002).Withthis

understanding,Iaddressedthetrustworthinessofthestudybyimplementingthreereflexive

practices:memberchecking,peerauditing,andresearchermemos.

23

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download