Search results

The purpose of this paper is to report on one UK secondary school English teacher and use his practice as a vehicle for exploring the classroom realities of dialogic assessment. Dialogic assessment, a term first proposed by Alexander (2004), is a position which seeks to synthesise the potentially powerful positions of both dialogic teaching and assessment for learning remains largely unexploited as an approach to developing effective teaching and learning.

Using video classroom evidence and interview, the authors explore the parameters within which dialogic teaching and assessment can be developed, and investigate the opportunities and obstacles which developing dialogic assessment bring about.

The authors develop a framework, drawing on the evidence, which demonstrates the development of dialogic assessment in the classroom.

This paper is an original look at dialogic assessment within the upper secondary sector.

The purpose of this paper is to deflate some of the pressure-orienting teachers toward following a curricular script.

The authors connect effective classroom teaching and learning practices to a dialogic instructional stance that values local resources and student perspectives and contributions. The authors argue that effective teachers have agency to make decisions about content and pacing adjustments (they call this agentive flow) and that they practice response-able talk. Response-able talk practices are responsive to what is happening in the classroom, responsibly nurture joint purposes and multiple perspectives, and cultivate longer exchanges of student exploratory talk. These talk practices are not easily scripted.

The authors show what these effective, local and dialogic instructional practices look like in a second-grade urban classroom.

The authors call upon every teacher to robustly find their local ways of working.

In this paper, the authors argue that harnessing the local is an essential aspect of dialogic instruction and a critical component of a dialogic instructional stance.

Purpose – The purpose of this study was to understand how, if at all, backchanneling technology supported an early career English teacher’s facilitation of literary discussions in his 10th grade classroom. Although emerging findings from studies of backchanneling in teaching contexts have illustrated its potential power, little attention has been given to how teachers learn to use the tool or reimagine their pedagogical roles as they use backchanneling for instructional purposes.

Design/Methodology/Approach – Discourse analyses of 16 face-to-face (frontchannel) and online (backchannel) transcripts of discussions exposed how participants used these two venues to interact simultaneously around a literary text. Methods from Nystrand’s (2002) dialogic discourse analysis isolated each teacher interjection in the contexts of each discussion.

Findings – The teacher used the backchannel to probe for elaborated student responses and model dialogic discourse moves. The teacher’s behind-the-scenes support limited his participation during frontchannel discussions, allowing for open discussion among students without the teacher’s consistent interjection, which disrupted the initiation-response-evaluation discourse structure that is pervasive in US schools.

Practical Implications – Although backchanneling technology can be used to archive records of students’ participation that could be useful for assessment purposes, the teacher’s skillful capacity to negotiate two discussions at once reconstituted his role during the discussion from facilitator to a fellow reader with his students as they explored meaningful questions that literature provokes – a less obvious and potentially more powerful affordance of this digital tool for instructional purposes.

After interviewing teachers about their beliefs on discussion, the author observed four English teachers as they led class discussions. The purpose of this study is to see what kinds of discussion were happening, and what teachers were doing to facilitate those discussions.

The author observed six English class sessions with discussion as a technique and transcribed each. To analyze the discussion events (DEs), the author focused on the addressivity of the teachers’ comments, and plotted the DEs on a four-quadrant system of analysis. The quadrants helped to move beyond the value-laden dichotomy between monologic and dialogic discussion, and to better understand what teachers are doing.

The majority of class sessions were classified as convergent-active but teachers used a variety of discussions. In particular, teachers were concerned about control, so they used three techniques to keep procedural control as follows: taking over the discussion, creating specific procedures and using the Initiation-Response-Evaluation format in different ways.

Instead of focusing on a dichotomy this method of analysis opens up the possibility for labeling different kinds of dialogic instruction, like the teacher-as-conductor form of convergent-active discussions. This can help teachers understand that addressivity and purpose matter as they create their discussions but also that various forms of discussion are necessary in the classroom. Incorporating dialogic instruction has been difficult for teachers; this method can help describe what they are doing while not devaluing the kinds of discussion that are taking place.

This paper draws on Kauffman's theory of the “adjacent possible” to make sense of the practices which have emerged in response to school and university closures in Hong Kong and reflects on what opportunities exist in this current global crisis.

This paper drew on qualitative data from two emergent practices – the e-practicum and co-teaching on an online platform – in a teacher preparation program at the University of Hong Kong. The data set included online teaching resources produced by student teachers (STs), reflections from STs, feedback from mentors and university tutors, interactions on an online platform and interviews with co-teaching team members.

The authors found “emergent practices” were developed in response to the pandemic by pushing the boundaries of existing practices and exploring the opportunities hovering at the edges of the possible. These practices were still evolving, but they contained elements that can morph into innovative practices in teacher preparation.

This paper provides a perspective on where opportunity in a crisis can be found and what innovation means in an educational context.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the growing interest in oracy and to propose the pedagogy of process drama as an ideal model for the dialogic classroom.

This paper takes the form of an explanatory case study where the author draws on a successful drama/oracy project in a primary school in Brisbane, Australia, to illustrate the connections between Alexander’s five indicators of a dialogic classroom and the process drama in which the students participated.

The application of this process drama as pedagogy for the teaching and learning of oracy has contributed positively to students’ oral communication skills and intercultural awareness. In addition, parents provide positive feedback about student engagement in school and developing self-confidence because “they have something to say”.

There was no formal pre-post test for the oral communication skills on this study, instead the researchers developed a draft “oracy” checklist which deserves further interrogation and development.

There are implications for the use of process drama as a means of creating and sustaining the dialogic classroom. Teacher professional development would be required to assist the planning and delivery of dramas that allow for the deep and complex learning evidenced in this study.

This is an ideal vehicle for assisting in the development of empathy, collaboration, emotional intelligence and intercultural understanding.

This is an example of an extremely high-quality curriculum plan and implementation. The importance of engaging in implicit and explicit instruction of oral communication for the twenty-first century should not be underestimated. The process drama allows oral language to be foregrounded, with additional learning opportunities from a range of other learning areas, brought together in a coherent and complex model of practice.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an account of the coaching element that was included in an existing graduate literacy course and to describe the responses of experienced and less‐experienced teachers as they began to add collaborative peer coaching to their teaching identities.

Data collected included teachers’ coaching logs and written reflections on the coaching experience, and field notes taken by a professor. Data were analysed qualitatively through open coding. Initially, the authors read data individually and coded them by what they perceived to be the teachers’ coaching moves. Separately, they developed lists of codes and then reviewed coding lists to work through idiosyncratic data, collapse codes, align their language.

The authors identified three overarching and multi‐faceted moves that the coaching teachers made as they worked with partner teachers. They found that the teachers: used restraint; focused on partner teacher's needs; and provided opportunities for classroom observations and demonstrations.

Due to budget cuts, district coaching initiatives are being down‐sized. With fewer literacy coaches available, the authors believe that classroom teachers would benefit from learning about how to support each another as peer coaches.

Teachers’ coaching moves, along with the curricular conversations engendered by them, created a culture of learning based on reflection and dialogue between coaching and partner teachers.

Very few studies have been conducted on peer coaching or have addressed the process by which teachers enrolled in graduate programs learned how to engage in collaborative peer coaching.

The purpose of this study is to examine how dialogic spaces were co-constituted (opened, broadened and deepened) between students engaged in divergent and convergent collaborative learning tasks, orchestrated by teachers in Finnish primary and secondary schools. The concept of dialogic space refers to a dynamic, shared resource of ideas in dialogue and has come to represent an ideal form of educational interaction, in the contexts of collaborative learning, joint creative work and shared knowledge-building.

A socio-cultural discourse analysis of video-observed classroom dialogue, entailing the development of a new analytic typology, was undertaken to explore the co-constitution of dialogic space. The data are derived from two qualitative studies, one examining dialogue to co-create fictive video stories in primary-school classrooms (divergent task), the other investigating collaborative knowledge building in secondary-school health education (convergent task).

Dialogic spaces were opened through group settings and by the students’ selection of topics. In the divergent task, the broadening of dialogic space derived from the heterogeneous group settings, whereas in the convergent task, from the multiple and various information sources involved. As regards the deepening of dialogic space, explicit reflective talk remained scarce; instead the norms deriving from the school-context tasks and requirements guided the group dialogue.

This study lays the groundwork for subsequent research regarding the orchestration of dialogic space in divergent and convergent tasks by offering a typology to operationalise dialogic space for further, more systematic, comparisons and aiding the understandings of the processes implicated in intercreating and interthinking. This in turn is of significance for the development of dialogic pedagogies.

This study aims to explore the authentic questioning practices of English Language Arts teachers. Although language arts (LA) education emphasizes the value of authentic questions in discussions about literature, teachers still tend to ask known-answer questions that guide students toward one literary interpretation. However, outside their classrooms, teachers talk about literary texts from stances of openness and curiosity. Helping teachers recognize and draw on their out-of-school literary practices might help them disrupt entrenched known-answer discourses. The authors studied how the same teachers asked questions about literature in different settings. The authors asked: To what degree and in what ways did teachers’ questions about literature change when they took on different roles in discussions of literature?

Drawing on theories of classroom discourses and everyday practices, this study compared and analyzed types of questions asked by high school teachers as they took on three roles: teacher in the high school classroom, discussion leader in a professional development and everyday reader in discussion.

Analysis showed that as participants moved further away from their teacher role, they were more likely to ask authentic, curiosity-driven questions that engaged fellow readers in exploratory, dialogic interpretation. They were less likely to attempt to maintain authority over students’ interpretations.

The authors hope researchers will build on these explorations of teacher stances and language in different roles, so we can work toward disrupt entrenched known-answer discourses in the classroom.

Drawing on this study’s findings about questioning practices of participants in their role as reader (as opposed to discussion leader or classroom teacher), the authors suggest that teachers and teacher educators consider the following: First, teachers need to understand the power of interpretive authority and known-answer discourses and compare them explicitly to their own everyday practices through rehearsals and reflection. Second, teachers might focus less on theme and more on exploration of individual lines, patterns and unusual authorial moves. Finally, when preparing to teach, if teachers can reconnect with the stance and language of uncertainty and curiosity, they are likely to ask more authentic questions.

These findings suggest both the power of entrenched known-answer discourses to constrain and the potential power of making visible and drawing on teachers’ literary reading practices in out-of-school contexts.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no studies have made an empirical comparison of the relationship between the role a teacher takes on during discussion and the kinds of questions they ask about literature. This study offers insight into the value of everyday curiosity and other out-of-school resources that teachers could – but often do not – bring to their facilitations of classroom discussions. The findings suggest that teachers, teacher educators and researchers must recognize and recruit teachers’ everyday practices to the LA classroom.

The purpose of this study is to explore the use of policy debate as a frame for developing critical participatory literacy skills focused on student engagement with current events.

Using dialogism as a frame for a discussion-based course (Bakhtin, 1982; Reznitskya, 2012) and self-study as a methodological structure (Samaras, 2011), they explore the iterative process of shaping a policy debate curriculum across three separate cohorts. In the process, they share reflections and insights about what they learned about their assumptions as teachers.

Instructors offer recommendations for structuring literacy practices that are dialogic and focused on student voice and policy activism. Specifically, authors suggest focusing attention to discussion activities, an emphasis on critical dialogue, where students engage with the ideas of others, and the practice of constant facilitator reflection to determine whether they have continued to center student voices and ideas in the classroom.

This study is key for beginning to understand how to put students in conversation with complex political decisions and for helping youth develop confidence in their ability to critique and evaluate those decisions as members of the larger society.