TheGeorgiaSocialStudiesJournal

Spring2011,Volume1,Number1,pp.1931
GeorgiaCouncilfortheSocialStudies

Discussionintheelementaryclassroom:Howandwhysome
teachersusediscussion

LisaBrownBuchanan
UniversityofNorthCarolinaGreensboro

Discussionisamultifaceted,invitationalclassroompracticethatpresentspossibilitiesforclassroom
teacherstoengagelearnersinacademiccontentwhiledevelopingtheirdiscussionskills,deliberating
socialandpoliticalissues,andpreparingsolutionstocommonproblems.Itprovidesademocratic
locationforstudentstoconstructlearningtogetherandlearnfromeachother.Discussioncanbeused
inmanydifferentwaysandwiththeyoungestschoolchildren.Currentscholarshiprelatedtodiscussion
intheclassroomisprimarilysituatedwithinsecondaryeducation,providingauniqueopportunityfor
developingresearchthatexploresdiscussioninelementaryclassrooms.Thisstudyuncovershowand
whythreeelementaryteachersusediscussionintheclassroom,andhowdiscussionissimilarand
differentinkindergarten,thirdgrade,andfifthgrade.

ThatssomethingIwantmystudentstowalkawaywithisbeingabletothinkandchallenge
themselvesandchallengeothers.Tess,thirdgradeteacher

Schoolisaremarkablelocationforrichdiscussion,affordingcountlessopportunitiesfor
youngpeopletoengageinshareddiscourse.Classroomdiscourseisacomplex,everchanging
systemthatincludesalldialogueintheclassroom(Cazden,1988).Oneformofclassroomdiscourse
isdiscussion,whichisashareddialoguebetweentwoormoreindividuals;itmayincludemultiple
perspectives,andmayormaynotincludetheclassroomteacher(Parker,2003).Tounderstandthe
utilityofclassroomdiscussion,itiscriticaltobeginwithtraditionalclassroomdiscourse.Cazden
(1988)discussestraditionalclassroomdiscourse;fromthere,shemovestodiscoursethatdoesnot
fitthismold,andexamineshowdiscoursevariesacrossclassroomsandamongteachers.Oneofthe
mostimportantprinciplesofCazdensworkistheimpactofpeertalkintheclassroom.Sheposits
thatpeerdiscourseduringschoolgivesstudentstheuniqueopportunitytoengageinacademic
discourse.Theseverybasicprinciplesoftraditionalclassroomdiscourseprovideafoundationfor
researchinclassroomdiscussions,demonstratingthepotentialforchildrentolearnbytalkingwith
oneanother.
Discussionhasrecentlybeenexaminedinsecondarysocialstudieseducation.Asamulti
dimensionalteachingandlearningtool,itdevelopsuniqueopportunitiesforstudentstoengagein
classroomdiscourseaboutacademiccontentandcontroversialissueswhiledevelopingtheir
discourseskills,learningtocreatesolutionstosharedproblems,andevenhoningtheirown
positionstowardscontentiousproblems(Damico&Rosaen,2009;Henning,Neilsen,Henning,&
Schulz,2008;Hess,2009;Larson,2000;Parker&Hess,2001).Itcreatesauniquelocationfor
studentstodeveloptheirownideasandlearnfromeachother,whileengagingtheacademic
content.Clearly,discussionisawidelybeneficialandpromisingclassroomstrategy.

19

TheGeorgiaSocialStudiesJournal
ConceptualFramework

Currenteducationalresearchrelatedtoteachingwithdiscussionisprimarilysituatedin
secondarysocialstudieseducation(Hess,2002,2008;Hess&Posselt,2002;Stoddard,2010).For
example,Hessexaminesitsutilitytoapproachanddeliberatecontroversialpublicissues(Hess,
2009).Althoughmuchofcontemporaryeducationalresearchaboutdiscussionislocatedwithin
secondarysocialstudies,teachereducatorsarebeginningtoresearchitsuseinelementary
classrooms.Thereisasmallamountofrecentresearchaboutteachingwithdiscussioninthe
elementaryclassroom(Allen,1997;Beck,2003,2005;Chilcoat&Ligon,2000;Damico&Rosaen,
2009;McCall,2006).Theseprojectsareprimarilyconcernedwithstudyingindividualteachersand
howtheyusediscussionintheclassroom,andnoneoftheseresearchendeavorsaddresshowitis
similaranddifferentacrosselementaryclassrooms.Thisrepresentsagapintheliteraturerelated
toteachingwithdiscussioninelementaryclassrooms.
Contemporaryscholarshiprevealsthediverseopportunitiesforteachingwithdiscussion.
Teachingwithdiscussioncaninvolvemoreformaldiscussionstrategieslikeseminarsand
deliberations(Beck,2003;Parker,2003)orlessformaldiscourseaboutsharedexperiencesand
classroomactivitiesorwrittenandoralnarratives(Henningetal..,2008).Itcanbeusedtoteach
academiccontent(Parker&Hess,2001),andfrequentdiscussionscanpromotetoleranceofothers
(Beck,2003).Attimes,teachersmayevenusediscussiontodevelopshareddiscourseskills(Parker
&Hess,2001).Becauseoftheopportunityforactiveparticipationandshareddialogue,discussion
affordsalocationtofosterdemocracyintheclassroom(Allen,1997;Parker,2003;Rossi,2006).
Currentscholarshipseemstorevealthediverseutilityofdiscussioninclassrooms,yetlessis
knownabouthowteachersimplementit,particularlyteachersinelementaryeducation.
Throughsynthesizingtheliteraturerelatedtodiscussioninsecondaryandelementary
classrooms,multiplebenefitsforusingdiscussionwithstudentsareidentified.Gooddiscussion
urgesstudentstorecognizediverseperspectives,dialogueaboutabstractandmultilayered
problemsthatarerelevanttotheirlives,participateinademocracy,learnfromothersknowledge,
andcoconstructknowledgewithfellowclassmates(Beck,2003,2005;Brophy&Alleman,2009;
Cazden,1988;Damico&Rosaen,2009).Thisseriesofexperiencescreatestheopportunityfor
studentstolistentopointsofviewthataredifferentfromtheirownandevenseevarying
perspectivesoncontroversialissues(Allen,1997;Beck,2005;McCall,2006).Studentswho
participateinclassroomdiscussionsaremorelikelytomakeconnectionsoutsideofthedialogueto
theirpersonallifeandcommunity(Hemmings,2000)andbecomeempoweredthroughsharingin
theclassroomdialoguewithothers(Rossi,2006).Moreover,studentscandevelopciviccompetence
astheytakepartinstructuredconversationswithothers(Hess,2009;Kelly,1989),andthroughthe
process,activelisteningskillscanbehoned(Parker,2006).
Discussion,likeanyteachingstrategy,presentsobstacles.Atanygradelevel,teachersmust
makedecisionsaboutwhatwillbediscussedwhenplanningforandimplementingdiscussionswith
theirstudents(McCall,2006).Teachersteachdifferently.Evenwhenteachingthesamecontent,the
questionsthatprecedediscussionsaredifferentfromteachertoteacher(Beck,2005;Chilcoat&
Ligon,2000).Thedifferenceinthewaythatteachersteachdemonstratesthepotentialtoguide
studentsintomeaningfulandempoweringdialogue,aswellasthedangerofsimplyrecappingfacts
(Chilcoat&Ligon,2000).Furthermore,teachersmustdecideiftheywilldiscusstopicsthatare
controversialandsensitive(Camicia,2008),andifso,iftheywilldisclosetheirpersonalpositionon
publicproblems(Hess,2009).Thecomplexityofteachingwithdiscussiondemonstratesthe
importanceofplanningforsuchopportunitiesandthinkingthroughwhatthefocusofthe
discussionwillbe.Becauseofthecomplexityofclassroomdiscussions,spontaneousdiscussionsare
oftenlessmeaningfulandengagingforstudentsthanintentionaldiscussionsthattheteacherhas
preparedfor(Henningetal.,2008;Holden&Bunte,1995;Lockwood,1996).

20

L.B.Buchanan
Currentscholarshipaboutteachingwithdiscussiondemonstratesthatplanningand
implementingdiscussionsbeginswiththeteacher(Lockwood,1996;Parker&Hess,2001).The
teachersroleinutilizingclassroomdiscussionincludesassessingwhatstudentsknow(Bolgatz,
2005),andscaffoldingtheskillsthatstudentsneedtoentershareddialogueandremainengaged
(Hess,2009;Kelly,1989).Ateachermustunderstandthecapacityofthestudentstoengagein
dialoguewithothers.Teacherscanusediscussiontohelpdevelopstudentsunderstandingoflarger
andmoreabstractconceptsbymakingconnectionsbetweencontentandbigideasduring
classroomdiscussions(Bolgatz,2005).Moreover,theteachercanusediscussiontohelpdevelop
studentsunderstandingoflargerandmoreabstractconcepts.Whenteachersimplement
discussion,learnershavetheopportunitytohoneexpertdiscussionskillsthroughrepeated
participation(Flynn,2009;Parker&Hess,2001).
Throughexaminingeducationalscholarshipdevotedtoteachingwithdiscussionin
secondaryeducationandthesmallbodyofcurrentliteraturerelatedtoelementaryclassroom
dialogueanddiscussion,theneedforfurtherresearchrelatedtounderstandingdiscussioninthe
elementaryclassroomisrevealed.Furthermore,therearenocurrentstudiesofelementary
discussionthatlookwithinandacrossmultipleelementaryteacherstounderstandtheroleof
discussioninspecificclassroomsandacrosselementaryclassrooms.Asonlyasmallnumberof
studiesexaminewhyteachersusediscussionwithyounglearners,thereisanopportunityto
furtherexploreitsutilityinelementaryclassrooms.Thisexploratorycollectivecasestudyexplores
howandwhythreeelementaryclassroomteachersteachwithdiscussion.

ResearchMethods

Togainamoredetailedpictureofthethreeindividualteachers,anexploratorycollective
casestudywasdeveloped(Creswell,2007;Merriam,2009;Patton,2002).Purposefuland
conveniencesamplingwasemployedtoidentifythethreeparticipants(Maxwell,2005).Three
separateboundedsystemswereexaminedwithinthisstudy:akindergartenteacher,athirdgrade
teacher,andafifthgradeteacher(Merriam,2009;Yin,2003).Althoughthethreeboundedsystems
werestudiedasunique,separatecases,thisstudyalsosurveysthreecasestounderstandtheuseof
discussioninkindergarten,thirdgrade,andfifthgrade.
ThestudywasconductedatasuburbanK5elementaryschoolintheSoutheasternUnited
States.Theschoolboastsmorethan40classroomteachersand800students,andhasconsistently
beenrecognizedasmeetingachievementstandards.Thestudentbodydemonstratesincreasing
ethnicdiversity,andthereisagrowingcommunityofEnglishLanguageLearners.Nearlyhalfofthe
studentsreceivefreeorreducedmeals.12%ofthepredominantlyCaucasianandfemalefaculty
haveearnedadvanceddegreesand9classroomteachersareNBCTcertified.Theparticipantswere
recognizedashighlyeffectiveclassroomteacherswhofosteredstudentcenteredclassroomsand
classroomdiscussions.Table1illustratesthethreeteachersdemographicdata.

21

TheGeorgiaSocialStudiesJournal
Table1.TeachersDemographicData
Characteristic
Currentgradelevel
Yearsofclassroomteachingexperience
Gender
Agerange
Race
Highestlevelofeducation
Area(s)ofcertification
NationalBoardPTS

Katherine
Kindergarten
510
F

Tess
3
510
F

Faith
5
1520
F

5060

3040

4050

Caucasian

Caucasian

Caucasian

M.Ed.

M.Ed.

B.S.

BirthK,
Counseling
Candidate

K6,Gifted
Education
Yes

K6,Gifted
Education
Candidate

Katherineisanoutgoingandoutspokencareerkindergartenteacher.Katherines
backgroundandexperiencesincounselingandearlychildhooddevelopmentinfluenceherteacher
visionandinstructionalstrategies.Shesharedthatdiscussionwasalargepartofhergraduate
coursework,andherundergraduateprogramstressedtheroleofconversationinchildrens
languagedevelopment.Katherinestronglybelievesinlisteningtowhatchildrenhavetosay.She
readilywelcomescurrentandformerparentsandcommunitymemberstocontributetoher
classroom,anddiscussionismostfrequentlyusedinherclassroominregularwholegroupclass
meetings.
Tessisanintrovertedandmotivatedcareerthirdgradeteacher.Herpriorexperiencesasa
fifthgradeteacherandingiftededucationinfluenceherteachervisionandinstructionalstrategies.
Asastudent,Tesswasveryquietandrarelyengagedinclassroomdiscussions.Extracurricular
experiencesprovidedanoutletforhertodevelopherdiscussionskillsandduringhergraduate
work,shelearnedaboutusingSocraticseminars,whichshenowimplementsfrequentlyacross
contentareas.InTessclass,studentsaremostoftenengagedinsmallgroupdiscussionsduring
guidedreading.
Faithisacandidandcheerfulcareerfifthgradeteacher.Herpriorexperiencesasathird
gradeandgiftededucationteacherhascontributedtoherideasaboutdevelopingclassroom
opportunitiesforshareddiscourse.ItisimportanttoFaithtobeheardindiscussions.Asastudent,
sheexperiencedlivelyclassroomdeliberationswithherfavoriteteacher,Mr.Costeo.Faithis
particularlypassionateaboutcultivatingandsustainingdiscussionsinherclassroom,andshe
enjoysusingcurrenteventsandcontroversialissuesasopportunitiesforengagingstudentsin
deliberations.
Therearefiveresearchquestionsforthisstudy:
1. Doelementaryteachersusediscussion?How?
2. Whydoelementaryteachersusediscussion?
3. Howdoelementaryteachersusediscussioninsocialstudies?
4. Howisdiscussionsimilaracrosskindergarten,thirdgrade,andfifthgrade?
5. Howisdiscussiondifferentacrosskindergarten,thirdgrade,andfifthgrade?
Theseresearchquestionsguidedthestudydesignandimplementation(Maxwell,2005;Yin,2003).
Threequalitativeresearchmethodswereemployed:semistructuredclassroomobservations,
participantinterviews,andafocusgroup.Datacollectionbeganwithclassroomobservations.An
observationprotocolfocusedonteacherbehaviorswascreatedtouseforclassroomobservations.
Observationsincludedfieldnotesandresearcherbracketing(Creswell,2007;Spradley,1979).The
observationswerefollowedbyparticipantinterviewsanddatacollectionconcludedwithafocus
22

L.B.Buchanan
group.Interviewandfocusgroupprotocolswereused.Theobservationsandresearcherbracketing
informedthesubsequentparticipantinterviews.Participantinterviewswereaudiotapedand
transcribed.Afterlisteningtotheinterviewsandcreatinginductivecodes(Hatch,2002),focus
groupquestionsweredesignedandparticipantsengagedinafocusgroupdiscussion.Thefocus
groupwasalsoaudiotapedandtranscribed.Thesemistructureddesignoftheinterviewsand
focusgroupallowedthedatacollectionprocesstomovewiththeebbandflowoftheparticipants
discourse.Table2illustratestherelationshipbetweentheresearchquestionsandthedata
collectionmethods(Maxwell,2005).

Table2.CrosswalkofResearchQuestionsandDataCollectionMethods
ResearchQuestion
Observations
Interviews
FocusGroup
Doelementaryteachersusediscussion?How?
X
X
Whydoelementaryteachersusediscussion?
X
X
X
Howdoelementaryteachersusediscussionin
X
X
socialstudies?
Howisdiscussionsimilaracrosskindergarten,
X
X
X
thirdgrade,andfifthgrade?
Howisdiscussiondifferentacrosskindergarten,
X
X
X
thirdgrade,andfifthgrade?

Dataanalysisbeganwithinductivecoding(Hatch,2002),whereinitialcodesforthe
observations,interviews,andfocusgroupswereidentified.Afterwards,domainspecificanalysis
wasusedtocreatematricesforeachclassroomobservation,participantinterview,andthefocus
groupdiscussion(Spradley,1979).Thematricesdemonstratedtherelationshiporfunction
betweenthecodesandthemes,andallowedmetoorganizequotesandresearcherbracketingby
code.Afterdevelopingamatrixforeachpieceofdata,thesourcesweregroupedbyparticipantto
createaparticipantmatrix.Constantcomparativeanalysiswasusedtodevelopthemeswithineach
singlecaseandagaintoidentifysimilaranddifferentthemesacrossthethreecases(Glaser&
Strauss,1967;Stake,2006).Thedatawasinterrogatedtounderstandwhatwasnotsaidorseen;
thiscontributedtoamoredescriptiveaccountofhowandwhyteachersusediscussionsandwhat
differencesandsimilaritiesarepresentindiscussionsacrossgradelevels,uncoveringthepower
dynamicsthataffectedthethreeteachersandtheirteaching.Furthermore,asthestudydesign
continuallyreturnedtotheliterature,Iconsideredwhetherwhatwasseenandheardin
observations,interviews,andinthefocusgroupwasrepresentedinthebodyofrelatedliterature.
Thisprocesscontributedtotheoverallcredibilityanddependabilityoftheexploratorycollective
casestudy(Lincoln&Guba,1985).
Tominimizethreatstothetrustworthinessandcredibilityofthestudy,Ifrequently
returnedtoandrevisedthestudydesign.Additionally,usingthreedatacollectionsourcesallowed
fortriangulatingthedatasources,whichincreasedthetrustworthinessofthestudy(Glesne,2006;
Maxwell,2005).Becausetheroleoftheresearcheriscentraltothedesignandimplementationofa
researchstudy,Ipurposedtocontinuallyconsiderthepresenceofmyownexperiencesand
positionality(Glesne,2006;Lincoln&Guba,1985;Maxwell,2005;Patton,2002).Withthis
understanding,Iaddressedthetrustworthinessofthestudybyimplementingthreereflexive
practices:memberchecking,peerauditing,andresearchermemos.

23

TheGeorgiaSocialStudiesJournal
Findings

DefiningDiscussion

Katherine,Tess,andFaitharethreeelementaryclassroomteacherswhodeliberatelyand
frequentlyimplementdiscussionintheirteaching.Eachteacherdefinesdiscussioninauniqueway.
Katherinedefinesdiscussionasachancetolistentowhatotherpeoplehavetosay,takingturns
withoneanother,andtalkingaboutthingsthatmeansomething.Tessdefinesdiscussionaswholly
interactive;asharingofideasaboutalotofdifferenttopics.Shebelievesthatitismorethanjust
answeringquestions,thatitinvolveschallengingyourideasandtheideasofothers.Sheposited,
Forme,discussionisreallymoreaboutthingsthatarethinkingquestions,thingsthatmultiple
answerscanbesharedfor.Faithdefinesdiscussionasapersonaloutlet,anopportunityforpeople
tobringoutissuesandperspectivesthatmightoftenbeoverlooked.

SimilaritiesBetweentheThreeTeachers

Thethreeclassroomteachersinthisstudysharebothcommonbeliefsaboutdiscussionand
theroleoftheteacherindevelopingandimplementingshareddiscourse.Theysharecommon
teachingandlearningstrategiesforteachingwithdiscussion.Table3illustratesthecrosscase
analysisofparticipantscommonbeliefsaboutcollaborativedialogueandtheroleoftheteacher,as
wellascommonskillsandstrategiesacrossthethreeteachers.

Table3.CrossCaseAnalysisofKatherine,Tess,andFaith
Theme
Example
TeacherBelief
Itisessentialtodevelopchildrenasthinkers
Successfuldiscussionscomefromrelevanttopics
Iwouldliketohavemorefrequentdiscussions
Discussioncanbeusedtoteachacademiccontent
RoleoftheTeacher
Pushescriticalthinking
Embracemultipleperspectives
Modelsdiscussionskills
Providesguidedpracticeindiscussionskills
Toprovidespecificfeedbackduringdiscussions
Discussionskillorstrategy
Openquestions
Classmeetings
Structuredpeertalk
Usetexttoelicitdiscussion
Usevisualstoelicitdiscussion

TeacherBeliefsaboutDiscussion

Katherine,Tess,andFaithshareacommonbeliefthatchildrenshouldbeheardand
everyonehastherighttoanopinion.Thisisperhapsthecornerstoneoftheirconfidenceinshared
classroomdiscourse.Throughoutthedatacollection,eachoftheteacherscontinuallyreturnedto
theideaofdevelopingstudentsasthinkers,andidentifieddiscussionasonecriticalmethodfor
engagingstudentthinking.Itwasneveremployedinisolation,butalwayswithinthelocationof
academiccontent.Inthinkingabouthowdiscussioncanbeusedtoteachacademiccontent,
KatherinereasonsIthinkthatiftheydiscussitandvoiceitthechancesaretheyllretainitmore.
Eachoftheparticipantsbelievesthatthemostsuccessfuldiscussionsoriginatefromissues
thatareimportantandrelevanttostudentslives.Thisbeliefmaterializesduringclassmeetings,
24

L.B.Buchanan
wheretheirkindergarten,thirdgrade,andfifthgradestudentsareallowedandencouragedto
discussandevendeliberatesharedproblemsandissuesthataffecttheirlives.Inthinkingabout
usingshareddialoguetoapproachrelevantissues,Faithalleges,itopensthemupandmakesthem
lookattheirlife.Discussionanddebatecancomefromtheirownpersonallife.Faithsposition
towardsdiscussingsharedproblemsandissueswasdemonstratedasIobservedFaithteachingone
partofalargerunitonimmigration.Duringtheobservation,shefacilitatedasmallgroup
deliberationaboutillegalimmigrationintheUSasothergroupsengagedintheirdeliberationsof
illegalimmigrationintheUSeitherwiththeteacherassistantorindependently.Shedescribed
thesediscussionsasdeliberationsbecausestudentswereengagedindevelopingaresolutionfor
illegalimmigrationintheUS.
Laterinaninterview,Faithsharedthatshefrequentlyfacilitatesdiscussionsand
deliberationswithstudentsandthatstudentsregularlyengagetheseopportunitieswithoutan
adultfacilitator.FaithlikesdiscussionbecauseitbringsoutissuesthatIdontthinkaboutorina
waythatIvenotlookedat.Katherinebelievesthatforherkindergarteners,thehomeisavitalpart
ofhowcollaborativediscourseskillsdevelop,andthatitisnevertooearlytobeginteaching
childrenhowtodiscuss.Shebelievesthatformanychildren,theseskillsareencouragedwhen
someonesays,oh,Iwanttohearyourideas!
Becauseoftheirsharedutilityofdiscussion,itisnotsurprisingthatKatherine,Tess,and
Faithwouldliketoimplementmorefrequentdiscussionsintheirclassroomstoteachacademic
content,promotestudentsasthinkers,anddevelopstudentscollaborativediscourseskills.Infact,
Faithproposesthatdiscussionshouldbeapartofeverylessonandthatitisaparticularly
effectivestrategytoelicitpriorknowledgeinscience,socialstudies,andmath.AsKatherine,Tess,
andFaithsharedtheirideasaboutdiscussionandtheirpersonalexperiences,itbecameclearthat
theseteachersbelieveinthepowerofdeliberateshareddialogue,andthattheyworktofacilitate
suchpossibilitieswiththeirstudents.
Theteacherscorediscussionmethodsaresimilaracrossthethreegrades.Allthree
teachersusediscussionacrosscontentareas.Theteacherssharedduringthefocusgroupthatthe
mostrecurrentlocationforclassroomdiscussionswasclassmeetings.InKatherinesclass,daily
classmeetingsareaspringboardforstudentderiveddiscussionsanddeliberations,especially
aboutproblemsthatarisethroughouttheschoolday.Outsideofregularclassmeetings,eachofthe
teachersutilizeunstructuredandstructuredpeertalkthroughouttheday.Whenaskedwhat
instructionalsupportsappeartoadvancetheiruseofdiscussion,Katherine,Tess,andFaith
revealedthattextsandvisualsprovidesupportforelicitingstudentinitialparticipationand
sustainedengagementindiscussions.Posingopenquestionsandprovidingexplicitfeedback
seemedtoencouragestudentengagementinwholegroupdiscourse,andallthreeteachersbelieve
thatsmallgroupdiscussionsaremoreinvitingandsuccessfulinelementaryclassroomsthanwhole
classdiscussions.

DifferencesbetweentheThreeTeachers

Katherineassertsthatwholegroupdiscussionsarecriticalinkindergarten.Developingsuch
opportunitiestotalkaboutsharedproblemsandtobuildclassroomcommunityisimportantto
Katherine.Shebelievesthatdiscussionismostvaluableforteachingconflictresolutionand
decisionmaking.Continualassessmentsandmandatedmathandliteracyprogramshaveimpacted
herinstructionalplanningandlibertytodevelopwholegroupdiscussions.Katherinefeelsthather
autonomyasateachertodevelopauthenticandmeaningfulinstruction,includingfrequentshared
dialogue,hasbeenimpactedbyinfluencesoutsideoftheclassroom,andthatshedoesnthavethe
timetolistentoherstudentsandreallyhearwhattheyhavetosay.
Tessusesdiscussiontocomplementhermathandliteracyinstruction.Shebelievesthather
instructionismoremeaningfulwhenshareddialogueisapartofstudentslearning,andshemost
25

TheGeorgiaSocialStudiesJournal
oftenusesdiscussioninsmallgroupteacherdirectedinstruction.Shefeelsthattherearetoomany
studentstoalloweveryonetimetoshareandreallylistentoeachother,resultinginaconstant
struggletoengagewholegroupinstructionefficiently.Instead,Tesspreferssmallgroupdialogueto
wholegroup,andworkstodevelopactivelisteningskillsanddiscussionskillsinherdailyguided
readinggroups.
Faithallegesthatdeliberationsandsharedgroupthinkingarethemostimportant
opportunitiesfordiscussionthatshecanimplementinherclassroom.Mostoften,sheusescurrent
eventsorcontroversialissuesinhersocialstudiesinstructionasaspringboardforwholegroup
deliberations.AlthoughFaithbelievesthatdeliberationsarecriticalexperiencesforfifthgraders,
shefeelsthattimeconstraintsandmandatedschedulespreventherfrombeingabletoteachwith
discussionaspartofeverylessonasshewouldliketo.

TheRoleoftheTeacherinPlanningforandImplementingDiscussion

Duringtheclassroomobservations,amapforeachteachersintentionalplanningforwhole
andsmallgroupdialoguedeveloped.Itwasevidentthatthestudentswerefamiliarwiththewhole
andsmallgroupformat,andteacherexpectationsseemedtobewellestablished.Wholeandsmall
groupcollaborativeconversationdevelopedseamlessly,andstudentswerecontinuallyengaged
throughoutthediscussionsinkindergarten,thirdgrade,andfifthgrade.
Theroleoftheteacherindevelopingdiscussionswassimilarinallthreeclassrooms.In
theirindividualinterviews,eachparticipantilluminatedtheroleoftheclassroomteacherin
planningforandimplementingdiscussions.Tessposits,Youwanttobepreparedasadiscussion
facilitatorwithnotonlyonebutmultiplegoodquestions.Youneedtobeagoodlistenerandtobe
abletoaskappropriatefollowupandthinkingquestionsthatmaycomeupinthediscussion.In
thinkingabouthowshedevelopslessonsthatincorporatedeliberateshareddialogue,Tessshared,
Whatsmygoalformystudents?Itswellbeyondthirdgrade.ThisbecameevidentasIobserved
Tessinherclassroomandlistenedtoherresponsesininterviewsandthefocusgroup.She
continuallyreferredtothelargercontextofthelessons,theroleoftheteacherindeveloping
discussionsanddiscussionskills,andhervisionofdevelopingstudentsasthinkers.Partofherrole
istoassesswhatthestudentslearnedandthenusethatinformationtoplanforfuturelessons.Tess
talkedingreatdetailabouthowforher,planningisthefoundationofherclassroom.Sheuses
collaborativedialogueduringsmallgroupreadinginstruction,insciencepartners,tosharemath
journals,andinregularwholeclassmeetings.
Katherineacknowledgesthefundamentalroleoftheteacherinmodelingandscaffolding
instructionforstudents,includinghowtodialoguewithothersandhowtolisten.Attimes,sheuses
purposefulgroupingstohelpdevelopstudentsshareddiscourseskills.Faithimplements
discussionacrosscontentareasandinwholegroupdialogueaboutcontroversialissues.Together
withherstudents,Faithdevelopedcommunityexpectationsfordiscussion.Priortobeginning
wholeorsmallgroupdiscussion,shereviewscommunityexpectationsandstrivestopurposefully
modelactivelisteningandfosteritamongstudents.
Theseteachersassertedthatastheyplanforandfacilitateclassdiscussions,theyare
intentionallyandcontinuallypreparingstudentsasactivelistenersandthinkers.Classroom
observationsandindividualinterviewsrevealedthatthethreeteacherspurposedtodevelop
classroomopportunitiesforstudentstodevelopsuchskillswithinwholegroupandsmallgroup
dialogue.Moreover,theirrolesasteacherswhopromotesuccessfulcollaborativedialoguethrough
askingthoughtfulquestionswererepeatedlydiscussed.Tessasserted,IfIcandevelopthemas
thinkers,theycangetalotofthatinformationwithoutme.Theyunderstandthecriticalroleofthe
teacherinplanningandimplementingdiscussion,particularlyinmodelingskillsandproviding
guidedpractice.Thoughtheroleoftheteacherandthediscussionstrategiesvaryacrossthethree
classrooms,eachteacherhadaclearvisionofhowandwhytheyusediscussionintheclassroom.
26

L.B.Buchanan
Theyarereflectiveandpurposefulintheirinstructionalplanning,andallthreeteachersreported
thattheystrivetoteachacademiccontentwhilecontinuallydevelopingstudentsdiscussionskills.

AdvantagesandComplexitiesofDiscussioninElementaryClassrooms

Theteacherstalkedopenlyabouttheirexperiencesinteachingwithdiscussioninboththeir
interviewsandduringthefocusgroupdiscussion.Theyhadallexperiencedbothsuccessfuland
lacklusterdiscussions,andopenlysharedtheirbeliefsaboutthebenefitsandbarriersofdiscussion
withyounglearners.Theteachersagreedthatmostsuccessfuldiscussionsarerelevanttostudents
lives,andthathavingmorefrequentdiscussionshelpsdevelopdiscussionskills(Parker&Hess,
2001).Theyshareacommongoalofdevelopingtolerancebyprovidinganoutletwithshared
dialogueforstudentstoexpressthemselvesandrespectothers.

Katherine,Tess,andFaithoverwhelminglyagreedthatsmallgroupdiscussionsweremore
realisticandoftenmorebeneficialthanwholegroup.Intheirexperiences,smallgroupdiscussions
allowformorestudentstobeheardmoreoften,amorecomfortableplacetoshare,andtakeless
timetoimplementthanwholegroup.AsKatherineshared,Itsjusttimeconsuming.SometimesI
justdontfeellikeIhavethatmuchtimetogive.Faithhasexperiencedthatforsomestudents,
smallgroupdiscussionislessintimidating,especiallywhenstudentsaredeliberatingcommon
problems.
Themostcommonbarrierofdiscussionthattheseteachersencounteredistime.Katherine
discussedhowtimebecamearealissueeveninprimarygrades,wheremandatedprogramsandthe
impactofstandardizedtestingwerefeltintheclassroom.Katherinewasparticularlyvocalabout
theimpactofstandardizedtestingandmandatedprogramsonschooling,stressingsomeofthe
mostcreatingthingshavefallenbythewayside,andImsadaboutthat.Tesstalkedoftenaboutthe
impactoftimeandclasssizeoninstructionalplanningandclassroomdiscourse,particularlywhen
tryingtoengageawholeconversation.Withalargegroup,inorderforeveryonetoshare
something,itjusttakessomuchlongerandyoulosetheirattention.Theyarenotasinterestedand
engagedinthediscussioninalargegroupsetting.Faithfeltlikecreativeinstructionalstrategies
likediscussionareneglectedwhenstandardizedtestingisinthehorizon.Theteachersdescribed
thecultureoftheschoolandhowithasbeenimpactedbytestingandscheduling.Forthese
teachers,timeheavilyinfluenceswhatinstructionalstrategiesareusedornotused,including
discussion.
Studentbehaviorsarealsoacommonbarriertoclassroomdiscussion.Alackofmutual
respect,failuretotaketurns,orpoorlisteningskillsallcontributetounsuccessfuldiscussions.All
threeteachersaddressedtheimportanceofteachermodelingandguidedpracticeoftheseskillsto
developstudentsdiscussionskillsandfostermoresuccessfulclassroomdiscussions.Theyshared
thatstudentsoftendonotembracetheideologicaldiversitywithinasmallorwholegroup,andthis
canhindersuccessfuldiscussions.Theabilitytolistendeeplyseemedtoimpacttheentireprocess
ofdiscussion.Katherine,Tess,andFaithbelievethatlearningtoengageindiscussionsisacontinual
process.

DiscussioninElementarySocialStudies

Ienteredthisstudytoresearchandunderstandhowandwhyelementaryteachersuse
discussioninsocialstudies;however,throughfieldobservationsandinterviews,itbecameevident
thatthethreeteacherswereimplementingdiscussionintheirclassrooms,butnotexclusivelyin
socialstudiesorevenfrequentlyinsocialstudies.Theteachersdidnotdiscusssocialstudiesor
discussioninsocialstudiesunlesstheintervieworfocusgroupquestionsdirectlyaddressedsocial
studies.Allthreeobservationsofclassroomdiscussionwerecompletedinthecontextofsocial

27

TheGeorgiaSocialStudiesJournal
studies,butwhenweconductedtheinterviewsandthefocusgroup,theteachersdidnottalkabout
usingdiscussioninsocialstudies.
Asthestudyprogressed,Ifoundthattheteachersweretryingtoteachsocialstudiesas
muchaspossible,buttheirteachingconditionswerenotconducivetoteachingsocialstudies
effectivelyorevenregularly.Theteachersexperienceswithrequiredtestingandmandated
academicprogramsdemonstratehowsocialstudiesinstructionhasnarrowedandwhy
instructionalautonomyinelementaryeducationisquicklyperishing.Inthinkingabouther
instructionalautonomy,Katherineshared,Youreallyhavetohaveasenseofresponsibilitytosay
whatmakesmeme?whatmakesitdifferentforsomebodytocometoRoom117?Theteachers
feltthatunlesstheirsocialstudiesinstructionwasintegratedintoliteracyinstruction,itwasnot
likelytobetaught.Theircollectiveoutlookconfirmsrecentfindingsthatincreasedliteracy
instructionisreplacingsocialstudiesinstructioninelementaryschools(BoyleBaise,Hsu,Johnson,
Serriere,Stewart,2008).Faithadmitted,Iknowteachersatthisschool,goodteachers,whoarenot
teachingsocialstudies.Theirscheduleswerehighlymanaged,withmathandliteracyinstruction
attheforefrontoftheirschoolsvision.New,systemmandatedprogramsinmathandliteracy
broughtscriptedtexts,rigidformats,andlittleopportunityforteacherstothinkontheirown.They
imaginethatwiththestateandnationaltestingprogramsfocusedonmath,reading,andscience,it
isunlikelythatsocialstudieswillreturntomanyteacherslessonplans(BoyleBaiseetal.,2008;
Rock,Heafner,OConnor,Passe,Oldendorf,Good,&Byrd,2006).Thisdilemmailluminatesthe
powerdynamicsofstandardizedtestingandmandatedprograms(Heafner,Good,OConnor,Rock,
Passe,Groce,Byrd,&Oldendorf,2007;Rocketal.,2006),anddemonstratesthestrugglefor
teachingsocialstudieswithauthenticmethodsinelementaryclassrooms.
Whendisclosingtheirideasandbeliefsaboutteachingwithdiscussioninelementarysocial
studies,Katherine,Tess,andFaithsharedthatsocialstudiesisanideallocationforteachingwith
discussion.Theystressedtheutilityandpracticalityofusingcollaborativedialogueintheirsocial
studiesinstruction,yetfoundtheschoolanddistrictfocusonreadingandmathtoheavilylimitand
attimesdiminishtheiroverallsocialstudiesinstruction.Whendescribinghowdiscussionis
actuallyusedintheirclassrooms,eachofthethreeteacherslamentedtheirrestricteduseof
discussion,pointingtoteacherdirectedreadinggroupsandsmallcollaborativelearninggroupsas
theirmostfrequentuseofdiscussionandverylimiteduseofdiscussionacrossthecurriculum.In
otherwords,theteachersdescribedapedagogicalmismatchbetweenwhattheybelievedtobe
soundinstructionalpracticesandtherealityoftimerestrictionsandtestingpressure.This
reaffirmspriorresearchbyRocketal.(2006)andHeafneretal.(2007)allegingthatsocialstudies
instructionisbeingminimizedordepletedinthewakeofincreasinglystringenttestingand
accountabilityinelementaryschools.

Conclusion

Thisstudyisthestoryofhowandwhythreeteachersusediscussionintheclassroom.Itis
designedtoilluminatetheroleoftheteacherindiscussion,whysometeachersusediscussion,and
thebenefitsandbarriersthatimpactdiscussionintheclassroom,whileencouragingclassroom
teacherstothinkabouthowtodesignlessonsthatutilizediscussionsfordifferentpurposes.It
revealstheirexperiencesinteachingwithdiscussioninsocialstudieswhilenegotiatingthetime
restrictionsofmandatedprogramsandschedules.Itidentifiesandaddressesthegapin
contemporaryscholarshipaboutdiscussionintheelementaryclassroom(Creswell,2007;Glesne,
2006).Thisstudycanhelpelementaryteachereducatorsdevelopdiscussionasacomponentof
theirteachereducationcoursework,preparingpreserviceteacherstousediscussionintheirown,
futureclassrooms.Implicationsforfutureresearchincludeexploringhowelementarystudents
understandclassroomdiscussionandhowteachingwithdiscussionhasimpactedstudent
achievement.
28

L.B.Buchanan
AsRocketal.(2006),Heafneretal.(2007),andBoyleBaiseetal.(2008)havepreviously
demonstrated,thepresenceofsocialstudieseducationinelementaryclassroomsappearsto
steadilydeclineasthepressureofstandardizedtestingincreases.Clearly,asthesocialstudies
providefantasticcontentfordiscussionrichinstruction,thedeclineinelementarysocialstudies
instructionrepresentsthelossofvaluableopportunitiesforremarkablewholegroupandsmall
groupdiscussioninelementaryclassrooms.Thesethreeteachersbelievethatthepowerdynamics
ofstandardizedtestingandmandatedprogramshavepushedtheelementarysocialstudies
curriculumintoobscurityanddiminishedinstructionalautonomy.Thisiscriticaltorecognize,
becausepriorresearchregardingdiscussionintheelementaryclassroomissituatedwithinsocial
studieseducation(Beck,2003,2005;Bolgatz,2005;Damico&Rosaen,2009).Yet,theseteachers
provideevidenceforpositioningandfacilitatingdiscussioninothercontentareas.
Wemustcontinuetoexaminetheroleofdiscussionintheclassroom,andtherealitythat
thoughelementarysocialstudiesprovidesaoptimallocationforutilizingdiscussion,teachersare
notarticulatingtheuseofdiscussionsocialstudies.Wemustfurtherexaminetheroleofdiscussion
intheelementaryclassroom,andconsiderwhetherthelackofdiscussioninsocialstudiesislinked
tothedeclineofsocialstudiesinstructioninelementaryclassrooms(Rocketal.,2006).Perhaps
thesetworealitiesarerelated?Thisstudyexamineshowandwhysometeachersusediscussion
withyounglearners,providinganaccountofthreeelementaryclassroomteachersexperiences
withdiscussion.Itdemonstrateshowthreeelementaryteachersusediscussionintheirclassrooms,
theirroleinplanningandimplementingdiscussions,andtheperceivedadvantagesand
complexitiesofclassroomdiscussion.Thisstudycontributestolesseningthegapincurrent
literatureaboutteacherswhousediscussionwithyounglearners,whileilluminatingtheutilityof
classroomdiscussionandrecognizingthedeclineofelementarysocialstudiesinstructionand
opportunitiesforusingdiscussionasaplatformforsocialstudiesinstruction.Thisresearch
endeavoradvancestheliteraturerelatedtoutilizingdiscussionintheelementaryclassroom,yet
demonstratestheneedformoreresearchabouthowandwhyelementaryteachersusediscussion.
Thisstudycontributestothefieldofelementaryeducationresearch,andisaspringboardforfuture
collectivecasestudiesofelementaryteachersanddiscussion.

References

Allen,A.(1997).Creatingspacefordiscussionsaboutsocialjusticeandequityinanelementary
classroom.LanguageArts,74(7),518524.
Beck,T.A.(2003).Ifhemurderedsomeone,heshouldntgetalawyer:Engagingyoung
childrenincivicsdeliberation.TheoryandResearchinSocialEducation,31(3),326346.
Beck,T.A.(2005).Toolsofdeliberation:Exploringthecomplexityoflearningtolead
elementarycivicsdiscussions.TheoryandResearchinSocialEducation,33(1),103119.
Bolgatz,J.(2005).Revolutionarytalk:Elementaryteacherandstudentsdiscussraceinasocial
studiesclass.TheSocialStudies96(6),259264.
BoyleBaise,L.,Hsu,M.,Johnson,S.,Serriere,S.,&Stewart,D.(2008).Puttingreadingfirst:Teaching
socialstudiesintheelementaryclassroom.TheoryandResearchinSocialEducation,36(3),233255.
Brophy,J.,&Alleman,J.(2009).Meaningfulsocialstudiesforelementarystudents.Teachers
andTeaching:TheoryandPractice,15(3),357376.
Camicia,S.P.(2008).Decidingwhatisacontroversialissue:Acasestudyofsocialstudies
curriculumcontroversy.TheoryandResearchinSocialEducation,36(4),298313.
Cazden,C.B.(1988).Classroomdiscourse:Thelanguageofteachingandlearning.Portsmouth,
NH:Heinemann.
Chilcoat,G.W.,&Ligon,J.(2000).Issuescenteredinstructionintheelementarysocial
studiesclassroom.TheoryandResearchinSocialEducation,28(2),220272.
Creswell,J.(2007).Qualitativeinquiryandresearchdesign:Choosingamongfiveapproaches.
29

TheGeorgiaSocialStudiesJournal
(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Damico,J.,&Rosaen,C.(2009).Creatingepistemologicalpathwaystoacriticalcitizenry:
Examinationofafifthgradediscussionoffreedom.TeachersCollegeRecord,11(5).1153
1194.
Flynn,N.(2009).Towarddemocraticdiscourse:Scaffoldingstudentleddiscussioninthesocial
studies.TeachersCollegeRecord,111(8),20212054.
Glaser,B.&Strauss,A.(1967).Thediscoveryofgroundedtheory:Strategiesforqualitativeresearch.
Chicago:AldinePublishingCompany.
Glesne,C.(2006).Becomingqualitativeresearchers.Boston:Pearson.
Hatch,J.A.(2002).Doingqualitativeresearchineducationsettings.Albany,NewYork:State
UniversityofNewYorkPress.
Heafner,T.,Good,A.,OConnor,K.,Rock,T.,Passe,J.,Groce,E.,Byrd,S.,&Oldendorf,S.
(2007).Factorfiction:IssocialstudieshistoryinNorthCarolina?SocialStudiesResearch
andPractice,3(2),502509.
Henning,J.,Neilsen,L.,Henning,M.,&Schulz,E.U.(2008).Designingdiscussions:Four
waystoopenupadialogue.TheSocialStudies,99(3),122126.
Hemmings,A.(2000).Highschooldemocraticdialogues:Possibilitiesforpraxis.American
EducationalResearchJournal,37(1),6791.
Hess,D.E.(2008).Democraticeducationtoreducethedivide.SocialEducation,
72(7),373377.
Hess,D.E.(2009).Controversyintheclassroom:Thedemocraticpowerofdiscussion.
NewYork:Routledge.
Hess,D.&Posselt,J.(2002).Howhighschoolstudentsexperienceandlearnfromthe
discussionofcontroversialpublicissues.JournalofCurriculumandSupervision,17(4),283
314.
Holden,J.&Bunte,K.(1995).Activatingstudentvoices:ThePaideiaseminarinthesocial
studiesclassroom.SocialEducation,59(1),810.
Kelly,T.E.(1989).Leadingclassdiscussionsofcontroversialissues.SocialEducation,
53(4),368370.
Larson,B.(2000).Classroomdiscussion:Amethodofinstructionandacurriculumoutcome.
TeachingandTeacherEducation,16(5),661677.
Lincoln,Y.S.&Guba,E.G.(1985).Naturalisticinquiry.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.
Lockwood,A.(1996).Controversialissues:Theteacherscrucialrole.SocialEducation,
60(1),2831.
Maxwell,J.(2005).Qualitativeresearchdesign:Aninteractiveapproach.(2nded.).
ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Merriam,S.B.(2009).Qualitativeresearch:Aguidetodesignandimplementation.San
Francisco,CA:JosseyBass.
McCall,A.(2006).Supportingexemplarysocialstudiesteachinginelementaryschools.The
SocialStudies,97(4),161167.
Parker,W.C.(2003).Teachingdemocracy:Unityanddiversityinpubliclife.NewYork:
TeachersCollegePress.
Parker,W.(2006).Publicdiscoursesinschools:Purposes,problems,possibilities.Educational
Researcher,35(8),1118.
Parker,W.C.,&Hess,D.(2001).Teachingwithandfordiscussion.TeachingandTeacher
Education,17(3),273289.
Patton,M.Q.(2002).Qualitativeresearchandevaluationmethods(3rded.).ThousandOaks,
CA:Sage.

30

L.B.Buchanan
Rock,T.,Heafner,T.,OConnor,K.,Passe,J.,Oldendorf,S.,Good,A.,&Byrd,S.(2006).
Onestateclosertoanationalcrisis:Areportonelementarysocialstudieseducationin
NorthCarolinaschools.TheoryandResearchinSocialEducation,34(4),455483.
Rossi,J.A.(2006).Thedialogueofdemocracy.TheSocialStudies,97(3),112120.
Spradley,J.(1979).Theethnographicinterview.NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston.
Stake,R.(2006).Multiplecasestudyanalysis.NewYork:GuilfordPress.
Stoddard,J.(2010).Socraticseminar:Amodelforfilmdiscussioninthesocialstudies.In
E.Heilman,R.Amthor,andM.Missias(Eds.),Socialstudiesanddiversityeducation:Whatwe
doandwhywedoit(pp.288291).NewYork:Routledge.
Yin,R.(2003).Casestudyresearch:Designandmethods(3rded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

AbouttheAuthor

LisaBrownBuchananisadoctoralcandidateattheUniversityofNorthCarolinaatGreensboro
Herresearchinterestsincludeclassroomdiscussionandteachingwithfilminsocialstudies.She
canbecontactedatlbbuchan@uncg.edu.

31