Prekindergarten children's second discourse learning

Kleifgen, Jo Anne

doi:10.1080/01638539009544755

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sometimes called an IRE (Mehan, 1979), this three-turn structure seems to be ubiquitous, appearing as early as preschool (Kleifgen, 1990) and in a wide variety of subject matter contexts (Dillon, 1988). Lemke (1990) named this triadic dialogue and found it to be the predominant structure of discourse in high school science classrooms.…”

Section: Research Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science

Zee

Iwasyk²,

Kurose³

et al. 2001

J. Res. Sci. Teach.

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper summarizes case studies developed by a group of collaborating educators. We investigated ways of speaking that encourage students to (a) formulate insightful questions about science topics and (b) express their own ideas during re¯ective discussions. The authors include elementary, high school, and college faculty. Subject-matter contexts included phases of the moon, motion, electricity, light, and waves. In developing case studies, we documented and interpreted student and teacher questions during the three ways of speaking we value most: guided discussions, student-generated inquiry discussions, and peer collaborations. Student questions occurred when we set up discourse structures that explicitly elicited student questions, engaged students in conversations about familiar contexts in which they had made many observations over a long time period, created comfortable discourse environments in which students could try to understand one another's thinking, and established small groups where students were collaborating with one another. Typically we elicited student thinking by asking questions that develop conceptual understanding. These included questions to help students clarify their meanings, explore various points of view in a neutral and respectful manner, and monitor the discussion and their own thinking. We also elicited student thinking by practicing quietness through long wait times, attentive silence, and reticence.

show abstract

Section: Research Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science

Zee

Iwasyk²,

Kurose³

et al. 2001

J. Res. Sci. Teach.

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead of analyzing teacher-student-teacher (Chin, 2006;Dillon, 1988;Kleifgen, 1990), we have shifted the unit of analysis, to student -teacher-student sequences, with a central focus on the teacher actions during this triadic sequence of exchange and the process that teachers undergo to respond to their students' conversational contributions. This is a significant alteration in the analysis of classroom discourse data because it provides a better picture of teachers' instructional practices, especially, in what the teacher is responding to (Identification), how the teacher interprets and evaluates students' discourse contributions (Interpretation-Evaluation), and how the teacher responds to students' discourse contributions (Response).…”

Section: Methodological Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Though we do not claim that there is a lack of non-IRF studies (Anderson, Zuiker, Taasoobshirazi, & Hickey, 2007;Buty & Mortimer, 2008;Hogan, Nastasi, & Pressley, 2000;van Zee, 2000), the IRF framework has dominated the research of classroom discourse over the last decades (Carlsen, 1991;Chin, 2006;Dillon, 1988;Gall, 1984;Hunkins, 1989;Kleifgen, 1990), becoming the most common way of analyzing classroom discourse, and investigating teacher questioning as a prominent feature of classroom talk. As a result, it has received numerous criticisms which we summarize below.…”

Section: Critique Of Existing Framework Analyzing Teacher Discoursementioning

confidence: 97%

“…All these elements suggest that classroom discourse is, by nature, a very complex process that includes numerous aspects that researchers must take into account. Focusing simply on the structure of the classroom discourse (Dillon, 1988;Kleifgen, 1990;Lemke, 1990), or simply on the types of feedback provided to students' answers (Chin, 2006) reveals only a fragment of teacher discourse in science education. Additionally, our findings are in agreement with other studies (van Zee et al, 2001;van Zee & Minstrell, 1997) that have revealed a large collection of teacher discourse moves mostly (but not exclusively) for asking questions.…”

Section: The Teacher Had a Large Repertoire Of Teaching Strategies Frmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identification, Interpretation—Evaluation, Response: An alternative framework for analyzing teacher discourse in science

Louca

Zacharia

Tzialli

2012

International Journal of Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although research has come to recognize the importance of studying classroom-based studentteacher discourse in science, the emphasis remains largely on teachers' abilities to ask questions and provide students with feedback, or on students' abilities to ask questions or engage in argumentative discourse. Consequently, little research has focused on the discourse elements relating to teacher-student discourse interactions. In this article, we argue for a shift of research attention toward describing what the teacher is responding to (Identification of student inquiry), the process of deciding how to respond (Interpretation-Evaluation of student inquiry), and how the teacher is responding (Response to student inquiry). We propose a new methodological approach for studying teacher discourse, which involves a framework we developed while analyzing 1,385 minutes of fifth grade, whole-class science conversations covering a 2-year period and facilitated by an experienced science teacher. Then, as a case in point, we applied our framework to the teacher discourse data of the study, aiming to show that the framework can be a useful tool for examining how a teacher supports students' inquiry.

show abstract

“…They point out that Grice's maxim tend to specify the rule through which people can infer the shared knowledge to facilitate the acceptance and agreement of the utterance. Kleifgen (1990) finds the Cooperative Principle is helpful in explaining understanding of the game rules by 3-years-old children. When the children flout the quality maxim to achieve humor effect, s/he has understood the rules.…”

Section: A Research Abroadmentioning

confidence: 99%