THINKING OUT LOUD: EXPLORING THE DYNAMICS OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITHIN FACILITATED WHOLE-CLASS DIALOGUES A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the School of Education Texas Wesleyan University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education in Curriculum and Instruction by Jeffrey Herr May 2015 THINKING OUT LOUD: EXPLORING THE DYNAMICS OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITHIN FACILITATED WHOLE-CLASS DIALOGUES JEFFREY HERR Approved: ________________________ Dissertation Chair ________________________ Committee Member ________________________ Committee Member _________________________ Director, Doctoral Program _________________________ Dean, School of Education _________________________ _________________________ © 2015 by Jeffrey T. Herr No part of this work can be reproduced without permission except as indicated by the “Fair Use” clause of the copyright law. Passages, images, or ideas taken from this work must be properly credited in any written form or published materials. iv THINKING OUT LOUD: EXPLORING THE DYNAMICS OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITHIN FACILITATED WHOLE-CLASS DIALOGUES ABSTRACT Jeffrey Herr This study was designed to explore early adolescent, student-to-student vocal utterances in relationship to teacher-presented textual dilemmas and student-generated topics during teacher-facilitated whole-class discussions. Through this study, grade 7 English/Language Arts students’ vocal expressions were observed and analyzed to better understand the dynamics of their discussions, as those reveal three modes of thinking out loud: exploratory, disputational, and cumulative talk. Student-participants chosen from one class of English/Language Arts at a North Texas charter school were examined for a period of four months using a qualitative, ethnographic design. The researcher in the current study served as an active participating observer, facilitating talks and collecting and analyzing narrative transcripts while performing duties as the sample class’s teacher-of-record. Findings gleaned from this study indicated that the foundations for enacting vocal exploratory communities of inquiry depended on four attributes: the presentation of succinct, textual dilemmas, the syntactical wording of topic-questions, the social dynamics of seventh-grade participants, and the importance of facilitator interjections throughout. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my Committee Chair, Dr. Twyla Miranda, whose guidance, diligence, encouragement, and serenity (in seemingly all situations) has mentored me through this “steady march” toward degree completion. Without her tireless efforts in consistent service as the liaison between me and my committee, this project would not have come to fruition in the timely fashion that it did. I am also indebted to my committee members, two wise sages of philosophy, Dr. Ron McManus and Dr. Nakia Pope. Their willingness to comment on my drafts and to offer enduring advice for revisions helped me to stretch my thinking and prepare a more cohesive paper. A special thanks should also be extended to two doctoral program professors who have forged an indelible niche, contributing to my growth as both a thinker and a teaching professional (and were with me literally every step of the way) – Dr. Aileen Curtin and Dr. Celia Wilson. The support provided me at home has always proved to be the most indelible of attributes in which to honor. My parents, Joe and Cheryl Herr, have always stood steadfast to provide for the well-being of me and my family. Their concern for their children and grandchildren have been undying and monumental. Though my quest to achieve this degree started and stalled and started again, my wife, Christina, would never allow me to let those initial dream-like sparks flicker out. She has demonstrated more than ever (throughout my doctoral program and this dissertation process) that the giving of one’s self has so many avenues in which to provide. Many times throughout this process she has whole-heartedly doubled and tripled her extending reach of dutiful love to accommodate my pursuits. Our four children, Emerson, Isabella, Redding, and vi Vadin, have also endured my sojourns to the back-room to sit and write for extended weeks and months. It is for them that I continue to drive and push forward persistently. I owe a special expanse of gratitude to my school, CKA, and to this study’s participants and their families. Without their agreements allowing me to mine such a non-traditional collection of data, the current study would have not been conducted in the same way, with me as the facilitator as well as active participant. Noteworthy throughout my dissertation process has been the unwavering support of my principal, Kurtis Flood. His belief in the benefits of shared ideals which emerge from discourse and for allowing me the daily freedom to challenge traditional methods of teaching, have not gone unnoticed. I would be remiss in forgetting to express gratitude to my university, Texas Wesleyan, which holds a special place in my heart. It was here that I first experienced true Socratic talk (thank you, Dr. McManus); met my mentor and the person I most aspire to emulate, the late Dr. Ron Reed; first found that questions are more important than answers; and learned from the greatest respecter of opinions -- in class or out, Dr. Twyla Miranda. Over the past 25 years, I have attended and graduated from Texas Wesleyan three times with degrees progressing through three increasing tiers. I realize now that it was the talk that kept me coming back to Wesleyan – the back-and-forth expression of ideas and opinions in which I have not been privy to elsewhere. It was the hope of gaining intra-mental, personal knowledge that led me back to Wesleyan time and again. Now I venture out again with the promise that that wisdom will be shared with the confidence to embrace the wonder of opportunities to think out loud. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables xiv Chapter Page I. Introduction to the Study Background of the Problem 2 From Control to Collaboration: Dialogue as Teaching 2 Dialogic Norms for the Classroom 6 Structuring an Environment for Exploratory Talk 8 Other Social Modes of Thinking 12 Texts for Thinking 14 Studies in Thinking out Loud 16 Need for the Study 17 Significance of the Study 19 Research Questions 19 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study 20 Limitations 20 Delimitations 20 Definition of Terms 21 Chapter I Summary 24 II. Review of Related Literature viii Toward a More Engaged Pedagogy 31 From Praxis to Reasoning: Theories and Empirical Studies 33 Piaget, Vygotsky and a Psychology of Thinking 36 Bahktin, Vygotsky and Freire: The Dialogic and the Dialectic 38 Absolutism, Subjectivism and a Middle Theory 39 Empirical Results from Class Dialogues 41 Dialectical Influences 51 The Origins of Philosophy for Children 53 Community of Inquiry within Philosophy for Children 55 Community of Inquiry as a Catalyst for Critical Thinking 57 Creative Thinking: Engagement within a Community of Inquiry 58 Caring Thinking: The Expression of Empathy within CoI 59 Community of Inquiry as a Process of Reflective Thought 60 Toward an Emergence of Exploratory Talk 61 Explaining the Process of Community Dialogue 65 Necessary Shifts in the Role of a Dialectical Teacher 66 The Facilitator’s Role 67 The Facilitator as a Bridge toward Student Reflectivity 69 The Participant’s Role 71 Criticisms of Philosophy for Children 74 Chapter II Summary 78 ix III. Methodology Introduction 80 Research Questions 81 Research Design 81 Researcher Identity 83 The Background of the Researcher as a Learner 83 The Background of the Researcher as a Constructivist Teacher 85 The Researcher’s Experience at Core Knowledge Academy 87 The Participants and the Setting 87 Setting Foundations 87 The Core Knowledge Approach and the Trivium Hierarchy 88 Further Description of Core Knowledge Academy 91 A Current Site Description of Core Knowledge Academy 93 Participant Selection 95 Data Collection 96 Doing Class Dialogue 100 Timeline 106 Treatment of the Data 108 Provisions for Trustworthiness 111 Chapter III Summary 112 IV. Analysis of Data 113 x Purpose of the Study 113 Research Questions 113 Chapter Overview 114 Part I: Discourse Analysis 115 Class Dialogue 1 – September 5, 2014: Non-Textually Generated Topic (21:00) 115 Class Dialogue 2 – September 11, 2014: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma Text – “The Heinz Dilemma” (24:00) 130 Class Dialogue 3 – September 19, 2014: Traditional/Classical Fiction – “The Necklace” (28:30) 143 Class Dialogue 4 – September 29, 2014: Factual Narrative – “Shooting an Elephant” (26:56) 155 Class Dialogue 5 – October 3, 2014: Non-Textually Generated Topic (35:45) 166 Class Dialogue 6 – October 9, 2014: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma Text – “Frederick” (32:20) 177 Class Dialogue 7 – October 24, 2014: Classical Fiction – “The Tell-Tale Heart” (30:04) 190 Class Dialogue 8 – October 30, 2014: Factual Narrative – “The Night the Bed Fell” (29:19) 202 Class Dialogue 9 – November 7, 2014: Non-Textually Generated Topic (41:13) 212 Class Dialogue 10 – November 14, 2014: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma Text – “The Runaway Trolley” (39:06) 225 xi Class Dialogue 11 – November 21, 2014: Classical Fiction – “A Sound of Thunder” (33:31) 238 Class Dialogue 12 – December 4, 2014: Factual Narrative – “Infamy Speech” (34:04) 248 Class Dialogue 13 – December 12, 2014: Non-Textually Generated Topic (28:10) 257 Class Dialogue 14 – December 18, 2014: Philosophical/Moral Dilemma Text – “The Afghan Goatherds” (36:46) 269 Part II: Textual and Non-Textual Influences 281 Dialogues 1, 5, 9, and 13: Non-Textually Generated Topics 282 Dialogues 2, 6, 10, and 14: Philosophical/Moral Dilemmas 292 Dialogues 3, 7, and 11: Traditional/Classical Fiction 301 Dialogues 4, 8, and 12: Factual Narratives 308 Summary of Findings for Research Question 1 316 Part III: Disputes, Agreements, and Community of Inquiry 322 Summary of Findings for Research Question 2 335 Part IV: Ground-Rules Review and Exploratory Talk 336 Summary of Findings for Research Questions 3 348 Chapter IV Summary 348 V.