Like a conductor: whole-class discussion in English classrooms

Abstract

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach 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. Findings 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. Originality/value 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.

Authority and authenticity in teachers’ questions about literature in three contexts

“…Even when LA teachers espouse beliefs in constructivist, student-centered teaching and authentic questioning, they still may default to an authoritative role and known-answer scripts (Alvermann, 1991; Andringa, 1991; Reynolds, 2019). They experience a “profound tension” between a desire to foster and perhaps participate in dialogic, emergent discussion and the “responsibility as teachers to make sure that discussions ‘go somewhere’” (Smith and Connolly, 2005, p. 272).…”

Nurturing the Literate Mind through Group Interaction among Literary Thinkers

“…The structure focuses on factual details and class discussions of modelled critical analysis which limits learners' ability to interact and become personally engaged in the learning process (Barnes, 2008). It also confines the ability to share possible alternative meanings that may be done through dialogic interactions like in group discussions (Teo, 2019;Reynolds, 2019). The structure is also argued to provide a minimal opportunity for expressing aesthetic appreciation or personal sense of the text (Rosenblatt, 1993) and limitedly supports "the development and cross-fertilisation of ideas" (Smith, 2004, p. 416).…”

Active Forms of Training Future English Language Teachers

“…It is interesting for us the research of Reynolds (2019) that analyzed the functions and scripts of a teacher during a classroom discussion among students. The attention of the research of De Pietro et al (2017) were focused on the following teaching methods: cooperative teaching, role playing game, brainstorming which were supported by the use of e-learning environments.…”