Ten Australian Elementary Teachers' Discourse and Reported Pedagogical Practices during Cooperative Learning

Abstract

This article describes the types of discourse 10

Classroom Climate, Rigorous Instruction and Curriculum, and Students' Interactions in Urban Middle Schools

“…Although our design did not allow us to investigate the direction of effect between teachers and students beyond simple regression models (and this should be explored further in future research), our results add to research suggesting that teachers are powerful models for students (e.g., Gillies & Boyle, 2006;Stewart, 2006). Students imitate the discourse they hear in classrooms, and teachers serve as exemplars of behavior.…”

Scaffolding: Definition, Current Debates, and Future Directions

“…Surprisingly enough, none of the reviewed scaffolds addressed intersubjectivity. Almost all reviewed articles covering one-to-one scaffolding discussed customization (Gillies & Boyle, 2006 ;Jadallah et al, 2011 ;Maloch, 2002 ;Mertzman, 2008 ;Raphael et al, 2008 ;van de Pol et al, 2011 ) , but no covered article on peer scaffolding or computer-based scaffolds did. And few articles addressed transfer of responsibility-only two each for oneto-one scaffolding (Jadallah et al, 2011 ;Maloch, 2002 ) and peer scaffolding (Palincsar & Brown, 1984 ;Pifarre & Cobos, 2010 ) , and one for computer-based scaffolding (Li & Lim, 2008 ) .…”

“…Effective elementary school teachers teaching a variety of subjects scaffolded student learning by challenging the perspectives from which students considered problems, prompting students to articulate rationales for actions, and highlighting discrepancies in student thinking (Gillies & Boyle, 2006 ) . They did this through prompting, modeling, and role-playing.…”

“…Customization of support on the basis of ongoing diagnosis of student ability was discussed in all but one article in this section (Gillies & Boyle, 2006 ;Jadallah et al, 2011 ;Maloch, 2002 ;Mertzman, 2008 ;Raphael et al, 2008 ;van de Pol et al, 2011 ) . For example, when a teacher thought that explicit attention needed to be drawn to her use of modeling, she explicitly told students that she would be modeling an important discussion process (Maloch, 2002 ) .…”

An empirical model of mixed-age teaching

“…They can change in configuration during the school day: the three most frequent are common interest groups, shared task groups and dyads. A productive group size is between 2-5 children (Gillies & Boyle, 2006). Anderson and Pavan (1993) indicate that sometimes even larger groups, between 12-15 pupils, might form a group when discussions, decision-making activities or planning events take place.…”