• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Investigating the use of talk in middle and secondary classrooms Maree Davies Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January, 2016 Melbourne Graduate School of Education The University of Melbourne Produced on archival quality paper Abstract This thesis describes two projects which investigated effects of systematic interventions upon students’ patterns of productive engagement and discussion in group learning contexts. In the first study, the Paideia method was applied with middle school students. In the second study, the framework of Quality Talk and the principles of dialogic teaching were employed with senior school students to encourage their interactions and their questioning skills. In each study, intervention classes were able to be compared with non-intervention classes, and students in both studies also participated through online discussion. Classroom interactions were recorded and coded. In Study 1, it was found that the use of the Paideia method occasioned increased volume and complexity of student responding especially on measures of student-to- student interaction. The complexity of these interactions increased significantly for students in the mid-level and high socioeconomic intervention classes but less so for the students in low socioeconomic classes. Differences between intervention and non- intervention students for classes in the mid-level to high socioeconomic classes achieved statistical significance but not for the low socioeconomic classes. Study 2 investigated the framework Quality Talk and principles of dialogic teaching in assisting students to use question-asking strategies, such as authentic questions, uptake questions, high-level questions, intertextual questions and affective response questions and within a classroom environment that encouraged trust and respect. Results showed students increased their use of authentic questions, uptake questions and high-level questions. In turn, the use of these questions appeared to stimulate more complex dialogue, more reasoning words, dialogic spells (a stretch of discourse starting with a student question and followed subsequently, thought not necessarily immediately, by at least two more student questions) and elaborated explanations (a statement or claim that is based on at least 2 reasons). Further, there was a significant change in writing with students in the intervention classes demonstrating increased writing with a critical analytical stance compared with the writing of students in the non-intervention class. ii The data from Study 2 showed the effect of a recurring pattern of teaching practice. Analyses revealed that productive student interactions became relatively disrupted through teachers joining into group discussions and immediately asking procedural or managerial questions. When teachers listened to student-to-student interchanges for several minutes before speaking, however, such disruption effects were not evident. It was also found many teachers inconsistently applied dialogic teaching methods but, using different types of feedback to students, appeared to have a positive influence on students’ ability to talk and write with a critical analytical stance. When student discussions were held in groups online rather than in face-to-face groups their use of uptake and high-level questions increased, as did their dialogic spells. Results indicate that interventions to increase dialogic discussion can be effective with secondary students, can transfer from spoken to written work, and can be generated in an online environment. The study’s findings also have implications for professional development for teachers in the use of classroom discussions. iii Declaration This is to certify that: The thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD except where indicated in the Preface. I have made due acknowledgement of the contribution of Anne Sinclair in Chapters 3 and 4 as these chapters were based on publications. The thesis is fewer than 100,000 words in lengths, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices. iv ! Acknowledgements I have worked extremely closely with my friends and colleagues Anne Sinclair and Frank Walton and to them I will always be indebted. We argued, we agreed, we disagreed and we questioned each other constantly. It was having these two close professional relationships that consolidated my thinking around the importance of quality dialogue. I am immensely proud of the work that I produced with both Anne and Frank and believe that it was our conversations that were the key to our success. In 1964, Elwyn Richardson famously said that learning is emotional. Writing a PhD uncovers every emotion there is—fear, lack of confidence, elation. I have gone like many before me through the process of knowing little about the topic, thinking I know just about everything there is to know about the topic and then ending with feeling that I have contributed something back to the field. Having friends through the good times and bad and feeling supported is fundamental to success. I wish to thank my two BFFs—Sue Spooner and Christine Robson and my lovely and supportive friend Paul Heyward. Thank you to Ben Spooner for the salads! I would like to thank Ian Wilkinson, Karen Murphy and Anna Soter for their incredible generosity in allowing me to use their coding manual—Quality Talk. Without their meta-analysis and substantial contribution to the field of dialogic education this study would not have been possible. I could never quite believe how privileged I was to have Professor John Hattie as my supervisor and how incredibly fortunate to have the fiercely intelligent Dr Suzanne Rice as my second supervisor. Two outstanding people in the field of education. My trips to Melbourne were challenging but unbelievably motivating and I came away each time full of energy and had been given exactly the direction I needed. Back home in Auckland the two colleagues who supported me the most were Associate Professors Gavin Brown and Christine Rubie Davies who helped to focus me on what was important. The person who I want to thank the most for this PhD is Christina Edwards Teope. I taught Christina how to code the data and she then went about this task and editing of v the papers with as much commitment as she would had it been her own PhD. We worked so closely through the coding that she started calling me “aunty” to her gorgeous children! You rarely meet people in your lifetime with such outstanding personal qualities as Christina. Christina, you have my utmost respect. I wish to acknowledge Hilary van Uden for showing me how to format the table of contents, Kane Meissel who helped me with the quantitative analysis for Chapter 5 and Greg Yates who helped with the quantitative analysis for Chapters 3 and 4. To my lovely and fun family—Marcus, Brit, Imy, Coco, Papa, Rae, Chrissy, Brett, Peter, Lisa, Brian, Rachael, Sophie, Digz, Ailish, Brad, Robyn, Giorgia and Harry my gratitude for your amazing belief in me. Your bored rolling of the eyes at my trepidation accompanied with “of course you will do it” was duly noted! What drives my desire to complete meaningful research and to lecture to a high standard is always the teachers’ and students’ in the schools so lastly, my utmost gratitude to the teachers and students of the schools who participated in this study. Unfortunately I cannot name any of you for ethical reasons. vi Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................... ii! Declaration .................................................................................................................... iv! Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ v! Chapter 1 Positioning Myself as a Researcher ............................................................. 1! Paideia Method Pilot Study ..................................................................................... 2! Study 1 ..................................................................................................................... 3! Study 2 ..................................................................................................................... 4! Outline of Thesis ..................................................................................................... 4! Chapter 2 Historical Background to Dialogical Discussions ........................................ 6! Chapter 3 Socratic Questioning, Dialogical Discussions, and the Paideia Method .... 19! The Paideia Method .............................................................................................. 19! The Current Study ................................................................................................. 22! Method .................................................................................................................. 23! Results for Time 1 and Time 3 .............................................................................. 33! Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................................... 43! Chapter 4 Paideia Seminars Using Online Discussions .............................................. 47! Paideia and Online Discussion .............................................................................. 47! The Current Study ................................................................................................

Load more

  205

Copy Link