S This descriptive study examined the manner in which more and less proficient peer discussion groups managed topics and group process across time. This exploration permitted an ontogenetic and microgenetic perspective on student and teacher development over a four month period. Videotapes and transcripts from the beginning, middle, and end of the investigation were selected for analysis. Analysis proceeded at two levels: macroanalytic and microanalytic. The goal of the macroanalysis was to identify levels of proficiency among six peer discussion groups. After identifying the group that was most proficient and that which was least proficient, microanalyses were conducted to determine how each group managed topics and group interaction. The microanalyses consisted of taxonomic analysis and contextual analysis of discourse and patterns of interaction. Results indicated that coherence is a key to conversational competence. Proficient peer discussion groups were able to sustain topics of conversation by revisiting old topics, making linkages between topics, and embedding topics within one another. These factors increase and develop gradually over time. Less proficient groups had substantially fewer linkages and embedded topics primarily because teachers and students initiated large amounts of metatalk. These findings suggest that large amounts of metatalk and teacher intrusion cause disjuncture to peer discussion and impair the group's ability to maintain topics. Este estudio descriptivo examinó la manera en la que se manejaron los tópicos y el proceso grupal en el tiempo en discusiones más y menos expertas entre grupos de pares. La exploración permitió obtener una perspectiva ontogenética y microgenética del desarrollo de los estudiantes y los docentes en un período de cuatro meses. Para el análisis se seleccionaron cintas de video y transcripciones del comienzo, el medio y el final de la investigación. El análisis procedió en dos niveles: macroanalítico y microanalítico. El propósito del macroanálisis fue identificar niveles de habilidad en seis grupos de discusión entre pares. Una vez que se identificaron el grupo más experto y el menos experto, se llevaron a cabo microanálisis para determinar cómo manejaba cada grupo los tópicos y la interacción. Los microanálisis consistieron en análisis taxonómicos y análisis contextuales del discurso y los patrones de interacción. Los resultados indicaron que la coherencia es una clave de la competencia conversacional. Los grupos de discusión expertos fueron capaces de mantener los tópicos de la conversación, revisando tópicos viejos, estableciendo vínculos entre tópicos e incluyendo unos tópicos en otros. Estos factores aumentan y se desarrollan gradualmente en el tiempo. Los grupos menos expertos contaron con una cantidad sustancialmente menor de tópicos vinculados entre sí e incluídos unos dentro de otros porque los docentes y estudiantes iniciaban gran cantidad de metaconversaciones. Estos hallazgos sugieren que gran cantidad de metaconversación e intervención del ...
First impressions are always suspect, especially when one judges a book by its cover. I fell victim to this when I scanned the title of Jill Fitzgerald's recent book, Towards Knowledge in Writing. Initially, I began to wonder if others had grown weary of the towards genre commonplace in our field. For me, Fitzgerald's title implied movement to some preexisting entity, as if knowledge about writing is out there awaiting our discovery. Admittedly, reviewing the past, discussing the present, and speculating about the future is an attractive activity, especially for a scholar. However, it seems that adopting such a view of what we know, what we stand to learn, and how we might answer questions assume the existence of a singular reality, as exemplified in the current search for a model of acquiring procedures from text (Bovair & Kieras, 1991) and the now distant quest for the model of reading (Samuels & Kamil, 1984). Fitzgerald put my first impressions to rest immediately. At a time of seemingly irreconcilable perspectives on literacy (Shannon, 1989), she carefully examines the epistemological foundations and research heritage of each perspective, and proposes, in the end, that we develop the means through which to construct a metatheory of literacy using knowledge emanating from each perspective. It is an honest and provocative search for what we are moving toward in our understanding of writing, as exemplified by her opening comments:
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.