Acquiring the art of classroom discourse: A comparison of teacher and preservice teacher talk in a fifth grade classroom

Henning, J. E. & Lockhart, A. (2003). Acquiring the art of classroom discourse: A comparison of teacher and preservice teacher talk in a fifth grade classroom. Research for Educational Reform, 8(3), 46-57.

Advisor ： Min-Puu Chen Presenter ： Kuei-Hui Hsiao Date ： October 13, 2008

Introduction(1/2)

Inquiry Response EvaIuation triad: The teacher asks a question, a student answers, and the teacher evaluates

the response (Cazden, 1986, 1988) .

The teacher also showed more appreciation for student thinking, commented more specifically on the nature of student thinking, was more likely to reject student responses, and was better able to shape student responses into coherent, well developed answers that

addressed the criteria of the original questions.

Introduction(2/2)

This study compared the discourse of two preservice teachers with an inservice teacher in a fifth grade classroom.

Identifying differences between the discourse patterns of experienced and novice teachers could help teacher educators develop explicit instructional strategies and performance-based assessments that well enable preservice teachers to closely examine and reflect on their practice.

Literature review(1/3)

The quality of student discourse is contingent on the teacher’s ability to ask effective questions.

Dantonio and Beisenherz have identified two functions for questioning: (a) to focus thought (b) to facilitate the process of thinking

It is through questioning, that the teacher can solicit participation, structure the discourse, and scaffold student thinking (Cazden, 1986) .

Literature review(2/3)

Mercer (1994, 2000) has claimed that the cycle of asking questions, interpreting student responses, and responding can be described by a few fundamental discourse moves that most teachers use to guide student thinking.

A reformulation is a way of restating the students response to better fit the teacher’s purposes. e.g. to make it clearer, to introduce more formal language

O’Connor and Michaels (1993, 1996) refer to the structural patterns of elicitation and response as participant frameworks.

Literature review(3/3)

The concept of participant frameworks is derived from the more conventional construct of participation structures, which describe the opportunities for interactions prescribed by relatively more stable classroom structures such as teacher-directed lectures or small group discussions.

Through her discourse moves, the teacher can create a context for student participation that gives her students access to discourse practices that lead to higher level thinking and problem solving.

Methods(1/2) 17 fifth graders an inservice teacher

had eleven years experience in the classroom and had been teaching in the laboratory school for two years

two preservice teachers junior year of college

4 weeks long , 25 hours During this time, they were encouraged to observe the

classroom teacher, ask appropriate questions, interact with students one-on-one, lead students in small group activities, and teach one or more lessons as a culminating activity.

Methods(2/2) During the unit observed, fifth grade students read daily

assignments from the novel Pinballs and discussed them in class on Mondays, Wednesdays, arid Fridays.

During class discussion, students were divided into three groups. Each of the two preservice teachers led a discussion in a group of three. The teacher led the remaining students (from 8 to 11 depending on absences) in a group discussion.

Tuesdays and 1hursdays were independent reading days, during which time the teacher and preservice teachers held individual conferences with students about the progress of their reading.

The questions for these sessions were designed by the teacher and given to the preservice teachers on a worksheet.

Results(1/2) The comparison between the teacher and preservice

teachers’ discourse during the individual student conferences showed that the teacher’s responses were more evenly distributed over a greater variety of categories (e.g. elicitications, confirmations, reformulations, etc.), with over 455% of her individual responses utilizing two or more techniques (compared to 14.8% and 2.2%).

86.7% of her elicitations were follow-ups to a previously asked question or questions.

Results(2/2)

Conclusions

In comparison to the two preservice teachers, the teacher’s discourse contained a much broader range of discourse moves, including more follow up questions, more cued elicitations, more repetitions, more reformulations, and more explanations.

While further research is needed to more precisely determine the basis for the teacher’s more structured discourse, findings from studies such as this one still have important implications for assessment and instruction of preservice teachers.