Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue

Lauren Resnick, Christa Asterhan, Sherice Clarke

• Publisher: American Educational Research Association
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9780935302431
• Topic: Bildung
• Subtopic: Bildungstheorie & -praxis

Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue focuses on a fast-growing topic in education research. Over the course of 34 chapters, the contributors discuss theories and case studies that shed light on the effects of dialogic participation in and outside the classroom. This rich, interdisciplinary endeavor will appeal to scholars and researchers in education and many related disciplines, including learning and cognitive sciences, educational psychology, instructional science, and linguistics, as well as to teachers curriculum designers, and educational policy makers.

Section 1

Effects of Dialogic Participation In and Beyond the Classroom

C H A P T E R 3

Dialogue-Intensive Pedagogies for Promoting Reading Comprehension: What We Know, What We Need to Know

IAN A. G. WILKINSON

Ohio State University

P. KAREN MURPHY

Pennsylvania State University

SEVDA BINICI

Ohio State University

Classroom discussions about text have gained prominence as a means of enhancing students’ reading comprehension. A recent meta-analysis by our research group (Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009) summarized evidence on the effects of text-based discussions and showed that such dialogue-intensive pedagogies can produce sizable gains in students’ literal and inferential comprehension as well as in their higher order thinking about text. In two recent practice guides published by the Institute of Education Sciences, one on improving comprehension in the primary grades (Shanahan et al., 2010) and the other on improving adolescent literacy (Kamil et al., 2008), the authors concluded that there was sufficient evidence to recommend that teachers provide opportunities for students to participate in high-quality discussions about text to promote comprehension. Numerous books for teachers now provide guidance on how to conduct high-quality discussions about text (e.g., Keene, 2012).

The purpose of this chapter is to take stock of the knowledge base underlying the use of dialogue-intensive pedagogies for promoting reading comprehension. First, we briefly summarize what is known about classroom discussions about text. We review what is known about major approaches for conducting discussions about text, the nature of the discourse in these discussions, and the effects of such discussions on students’ reading comprehension. Next, we examine areas where more needs to be known. What is not clear in the evidentiary base on classroom discussion is whether it has generative value for students—that is, whether discussion fosters general comprehension abilities that transfer to new texts and novel tasks. We examine the best evidence of transfer to date, whereby researchers have assessed the effects of discussion on measures that are independent of the texts discussed, and we consider the theoretical arguments as to why such discussions might have generative value for reading comprehension. We also discuss the need for research on how to help teachers learn to conduct text-based discussions. We conclude by providing directions for future research in the area.

The context for our claims regarding what is known and needs to be known is a 4-year research project funded by the Institute of Education Sciences and designed to synthesize extant research on text-based discussions. In that project, we identified nine major approaches to conducting discussion that had potential to promote students’ high-level comprehension of text (Wilkinson, Murphy, & Soter, 2015). We analyzed the discourse in these discussions to provide an understanding of the nature of students’ thinking (Soter et al., 2008). We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of quantitative studies to examine the effects of discussion on teacher-student talk and on individual student comprehension and reasoning outcomes (Murphy et al., 2009). We also developed a generic model for conducting text-based discussions called Quality Talk (Wilkinson, Soter, & Murphy, 2010) and, in concert with this, we developed a professional development tool teachers can use to assess the quality of talk in their discussions (Wilkinson, Reninger, & Soter, 2010).

What We Know

What Are the Major Approaches to Conducting Classroom Discussion About Text?

In our earlier work, we identified nine major approaches to conducting discussions about text. To qualify for inclusion as a “major approach,” an approach had to demonstrate consistency of application (i.e., it had to “look” the same wherever it was implemented) and have an established place in educational research or practice based on a record of peer-reviewed, empirical research published since 1970. In our judgment, nine approaches met these criteria: Instructional Conversations (Goldenberg, 1992/1993), Junior Great Books Shared Inquiry (Great Books Foundation, 1987), Questioning the Author (Beck & McKeown, 2006), Collaborative Reasoning (Anderson, Chinn, Waggoner, & Nguyen, 1998), Paideia Seminars (Billings & Fitzgerald, 2002), Philosophy for Children (Sharp, 1995), Book Club (Raphael & McMahon, 1994), Grand Conversations (Eeds & Wells, 1989), and Literature Circles (Short & Pierce, 1990).

The important differences among these approaches are in the dominant stance toward the text and the degree of control exerted by the teacher versus the students (cf. Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner, 2001). Stance is often categorized, on the basis of the work of Rosenblatt (1978), in terms of an efferent stance, reading to acquire and retrieve information, or an aesthetic stance, reading to respond to literature. There is also a critical-analytic stance, in which the purpose of reading is to interrogate or query the text in search of the underlying arguments, assumptions, worldviews, or beliefs (cf. Wade, Thompson, & Watkins, 1994). The degree of control exerted by the teacher versus the students depends on who has control of the topic of discussion, who has interpretive authority, who controls the turns, and who chooses the text. Discussions that give prominence to an efferent stance toward the text tend to be those in which the teacher has the greater control. These include Questioning the Author, Instructional Conversations, and Junior Great Books Shared Inquiry. Conversely, discussions that give prominence to an aesthetic stance tend to be those in which students have the greater control. These include Literature Circles, Grand Conversations, and Book Club. Discussions that give prominence to a critical-analytic stance tend to be those in which teachers and students share control. In these approaches, the teacher has considerable control over the choice of text and topic, but students have considerable interpretive authority and control of turns. These include Paideia Seminars, Collaborative Reasoning, and Philosophy for Children.

Accountable Talk, developed by Lauren Resnick and her colleagues (Michaels, O’Connor, Hall, & Resnick, 2002; Michaels, O’Connor, & Resnick, 2008), might also be considered as another major approach to conducting text-based discussions. However, like Quality Talk, it is probably better considered as an overarching framework or generic model for conducting productive classroom talk. Although it has applicability as an approach for promoting reading comprehension (see Wolf, Crosson, & Resnick, 2005), it has a more general applicability and can be instantiated in a variety of ways depending on the academic context.

What Does the Discourse “Look” Like?

There is considerable agreement among scholars as to the nature of the discourse that characterizes productive discussion about text. Typically, the discussion revolves around a series of open-ended, authentic questions (sometimes called “interpretive questions”), from the teacher or the students, for which there are no prespecified answers (Nystrand, 1997; Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser, & Long, 2003). When the teacher asks follow-up questions, the teacher will often build on students’ responses with questions that incorporate what the students said (called “uptake”). The cognitive level of the questions tends to be high, prompting analysis, generalization, and speculation on the part of the students rather than simple recitation or report of what is in the text. It is worth noting that these authentic questions, uptake, and high–cognitive demand questions serve important social and epistemic roles in the discussion. Together, they afford students considerable control over the flow of the discussion and a high degree of agency in the construction of knowledge and understanding.

To lesser and varying degrees, productive discussions about text are characterized by questions, from either the teacher or the students, that elicit extratextual connections. These include questions that prompt the students to make connections to their own lives or feelings (affective response questions), to other texts or media (intertextual response questions), and to knowledge or understanding established by the group in prior discussions (shared-knowledge response questions) (Allington & Johnston, 2002; Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003; Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993; Edwards & Mercer, 1987; Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2003).

As students discuss, they engage in individual and collective reasoning about issues raised by the text. They provide elaborated explanations for their claims, opinions, or beliefs by supporting their views with reasonably coherent chains of reasons and evidence. The reasons and evidence might be based on the text, their background knowledge, or their moral or ethical values. They also participate in extended episodes of exploratory talk (Mercer, 1995, 2000) in which they listen and react to one another’s ideas and reason and think together to co-construct knowledge and understanding about the text.

Taken together, then, productive discussions about text are structured and focused, yet not dominated by the teacher. In such discussions, students hold the floor for extended periods of time and are prompted to discuss the text through open-ended or authentic questions, questions that show uptake, and questions that elicit high-level thinking on the part of students. Students draw on their background and experience and on prior discussions to make connection to the text, and they engage in individual and collective reasoning.

What Are the Effects on Comprehension?

As mentioned earlier, Murphy et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of the effects of the nine major approaches to conducting classroom discussions about text on students’ reading comprehension. The meta-analysis included 42 quantitative studies that focused on the effects of text-based discussions on students’ comprehension. Studies included single-group, pretest-posttest, and multiple-group studies in which researchers assessed the effects of discussion on measures of teacher and student talk, researcher-developed measures of comprehension (including complex writing tasks such as persuasive essays), or commercially available, standardized tests of reading comprehension. Results showed that the effects of discussion varied depending on the nature of the discussion and the type of study. Some of the approaches were effective at promoting students’ literal and inferential comprehension, producing effects as large as almost 3.0 standard deviations for single-group studies and 0.8 standard deviations for multiple-group studies. These effects were found for approaches that had a more efferent stance toward the text, namely, Questioning the Author, Instructional Conversations, and Junior Great Books Shared Inquiry. Some of the approaches were effective at promoting students’ critical thinking, reasoning, and argumentation about text, producing effects as large as almost 2.5 standard deviations for single-group studies and 0.4 standard deviations for multiple-group studies. These effects were found for Collaborative Reasoning and Junior Great Books Shared Inquiry.

Murphy et al. (2009) also found that that increases in student talk did not necessarily result in concomitant increases in student comprehension. Rather, it seemed that a particular kind of talk was necessary to promote comprehension. This is consistent with observations from other research, as well as our own, that the success of discussion hinges not on increasing the amount of student talk per se but on enhancing the quality of the talk (cf. Wells, 1989). Results of the meta-analysis also suggested that the discussion approaches exhibited greater effects for students of below-average ability than for students of average or above-average ability. The effects of discussion also varied by type of outcome measure. By and large, the effects were greatest on measures of student and teacher talk—student talk increased and teacher talk decreased; they were smaller on researcher-developed measures of comprehension; and they were smaller still on commercially available, standardized tests of reading comp...