Wikipedia:School and university projects/Discourse in the Language Arts Classroom

Introduction

Discourse in the classroom can be beneficial to students. Researchers have identified different types of discourse used in the classroom and they have outlined different ways to use discourse with varying levels of benefit, but one of the problems associated with the research of discourse in the English Language Arts classroom is the data recovered from experimentation. The nature of discourse in itself can be a spontaneous act of learning that is not always possible to document using numerical data. Some educators involved in this research are skeptical about what works and what does not. They see practices work well in some classrooms that don’t work well in others and they have struggled to put together conclusive evidence linking all classrooms, students, and teachers.

Personhood

According to Egan-Robertson (1998), “Personhood is a dynamic, cultural construct about who is and what is considered to be a person, what attributes and rights are constructed as inherent to being a person, and what social positions are available within the construct of being a person”(p.453). This argument is discussed by Bloome; relating that the idea of the individual person is often taken for granted when dealing with topics like discourse (2004). The personhood of the individual has to be considered when making judgments about practices used in the classroom. Bloome constructs an argument that aligns personhood and language and argues that discourse and learning cannot be a separate discussion form personhood. Therefore, discourse within the classroom is a cultural event because students interpret information through their own culture. Data must be analyzed taking into account the personhood of the students within the classroom from which the data was gathered.

Bloome’s argument is solid but it creates a problem for researchers. Taking every individual into account within a classroom is a difficult task and one that has not been undertaken in a large study within the area of discourse. However, the information above is noted because of the implications it generates regarding the nature of the data itself. The data and practices listed below do not take into account each and every student within each and every classroom and this causes a problem for many people involved in the research of discourse. Other researchers have attempted to generalize data in the attempt to show beneficial practices in the classroom. Results of this type of research are listed below.

Wait Times

Tobin defines wait times “in terms of the duration of the pauses separating speakers. Two types of pauses can be distinguished. The first is a pause that separates two teacher utterances and the second is a pause preceding a teacher utterance that follows a student utterance (Tobin 1986). These two different types of pauses have different implications for student learning. The time between two teacher utterances allows students to process the information just related, or to “assimilate new knowledge with previously learned information (1986)." This type becomes important during long teacher utterances because students need pauses in the flow of new information to allow time for processing. As with all information, the more complex the material, the more time students need to process and therefore the longer the wait time should be. The pause after a student speaks gives time for all students to identify with what has been said. Students can think of an alternative view point, add something to what has been said, or use that time for processing. Teachers should be aware of how to use pauses and reflect on the complexity of the material to determine how long the wait times should be.

Wait times are beneficial for teachers as well. Tobin suggested the wait times give teachers a chance to reflect on what has been said and where to take the discussion next. The research indicated that wait times of three to five seconds yielded more effective direction from the teacher during discussion. Teachers’ questions were more frequently answered by students and answered with more complex thought behind them.

Teacher and Student Performance

The teacher’s role in conducting the discussion is one of the main factors in determining the depth of student learning during discourse. Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, and Gamoran found three ways teacher performance determines student learning in their nationwide research. They found student learning increased when the teacher allowed “more use of authentic questions, which were used to explore differing understandings rather than to "test" what students might already know; more time for open discussion: whole-class discourse devoted to free exchange of ideas among students or between at least three participants; and more "uptake,” in which a teacher's question "took up" and built on a student's previous comment, creating continuity in the discourse (2003, p. 7). Teachers should use student response as a scaffolding tool to engage and build on previous student response. Sometimes teachers need to ask questions to which they already know the answers for assessment purposes, but in a discussion in which the teacher is trying to get students to arrive at new knowledge, the teacher should try and ask questions to which the students don’t already know the answers. When students arrive at answers on their own through disourse, the opportunity for deeper learning arises.

Resources

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-Bsed approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685-730.

Bloome, D. (2004). Discourse Analysis and the Study of Classroom Language and Literacy Events - A microethnographic perspective. London: Routledg

Carlsen, W. S. (1991).Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research. 61, 157-78.

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Westport, CT: Heinemann.

Egan-Robertson, A (1998).Learning about culture, language, and power: understanding relationships among personhood, literacy practices, and intertextuality.. Journal of Literacy Research. 40, 449-87.

Moffett, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Tobin, K. (1986).TEffects of teacher wait time on discourse characteristics in mathematics and language arts classes. American Educational Research Journal. 23, 191-20.