A Comparative Analysis of Student and Teacher Development in More and Less Proficient Discussions of Literature

Abstract

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 ...

Improving students’ narrative comprehension through a multiple strategy approach. Effects of Dialogic Strategy Instruction in secondary school.

“…One of the more viable turns taken in research on the learning and teaching of text comprehension in the last decade is the emphasis on dialogic approaches (Almasi et al, 2001;Soter et al, 2008;Wilkinson & Son, 2011). Although attention to the role of classroom dialogue goes all the way back to the 1860s (Nystrand, 2006), research on how structured discussions may 'scaffold' (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) higher-order thinking about texts has provided a number of new insights.…”

“…Drawing on the works of Vygotsky (1978) and Bakhtin (1981), Almasi, O'Flahavan, and Arya (2001), Nystrand, Gamoran, Kachur, and Prendergast (1997), Soter, Wilkinson, Murphy, Rudge, Reninger, and Edwards (2008), and others, all argue that open-ended, exploratory discussion may enable a public sharing of literary understanding and a co-construction of knowledge. Vygotsky's idea of the development of conceptual understanding through interaction with more capable peers, and Bakhtin's emphasis on the dialogic nature of understanding itself correspond well with the modelling of and interaction on text comprehension that are central to strategy instruction.…”

Les cercles littéraires entre pairs en première secondaire : étude des relations entre les modalités de lecture et de collaboration

“…Pourquoi ? Cette résistance de la part des enseignants s'explique peut-être en partie par le manque de compréhension que nous avons de la nature ou de la dynamique interne de ce type d'activité dialogique (Almasi, O'Flahavan et Arya, 2001). En plus de mal connaître ce qui assure la cohérence et la réussite des cercles littéraires, nous connaissons encore mal comment peuvent s'y imbriquer tous les modes et stratégies de lecture, comment les élèves peuvent problématiser et développer de manière autonome leurs interprétations, comment s'effectue le guidage des pairs dans ce contexte de collaboration autonome et, aussi, en quoi pourraient se distinguer les comportements des élèves des classes dites enrichies et régulières.…”

“…Les études visant à dégager des catégories d'interaction dans les cercles littéraires ont permis d'identifier une grande variété de types d'interactions, dont la dynamique importerait plus que la quantité (Almasi et al, 2001 ;Marshall, Smagorinsky et Smith, 1995). Les bonnes discussions se distingueraient quant à leurs divers degrés d'articulation, de cohérence et de gestion.…”

Navigating between disorder and control: Challenges and choices when teaching reading strategies in the L1 classroom

“…A majority of the studies on discussions about texts in classrooms are studies that focus on literature discussions. Some of these studies draw attention to teachers' questions and students' and teachers' speaking space in discussions (Chinn et al, 2001;Hynds, 1990Hynds, , 1991Hynds, , 1992Marshall, 1989) and other studies are concerned with studying the quantitative aspects of students participation in literature discussions regarding, for example, their tendency to present and argue for their own interpretations (Almasi et al, 2001;Anderson et al, 1998;Goatley, Brock & Raphael, 1995). Many studies also highlight the positive aspects of literature discussions, although these tend to focus more on group processes or present more general descriptions of students' cognitive development (Almasi, 1995;Evans, 2002;Maloch, 2002;Parsons, 2004), than on how the conversation can help develop students' reading strategies (Asplund, 2010;Roberts & Langer, 1991;Reninger, 2007;Tengberg, 2011 are some exceptions).…”