Measuring the Dialogic Quality of
We identified the
Classroom Discussions
- by Alina Reznitskaya
This article discusses the research conducted
by Dr. Alina Reznitskaya in collaboration with the
IAPC to investigate the educational potential of
dialogic interactions. This time, we will focus on the
measurement strategies we used to evaluate the
differences in classroom discourse. In the study,
12 fifth-grade classrooms in Northern New Jersey
were randomly assigned to two treatment conditions
described below:
1) Philosophy for Children. This was an
experimental condition, where, for the period of 12
weeks, literature discussions were conducted by two
doctoral assistants and one faculty member from the
Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children
at Montclair State University.
2) Traditional Instruction. In this control condition,
12 weekly literature discussions were conducted
by classroom teachers using their regular teaching
methods.
All discussions were videotaped, so by the end of
the study we generated a large dataset that included
144 hours of classroom discussions (12 discussions
in 12 classrooms). We analyzed a sub-set of these
data consisting of 36 discussion transcripts (18 per
each treatment condition). Using QSR Nvivo computer
software (QSR, 1997), we coded teacher and student
talk during class discussions, thus generating several
numerical summaries of process variables reflecting
the characteristics of group interactions.
We focused on two major dimensions of class
discussions, Community and Inquiry. The Community
dimension represents the following:
1. Allocation of participation. We assigned different
codes to speaking turns made by a teacher vs.
male or female students.
1
2. Patterns of interactions.
instances of a teacher turn followed by one vs. two
or more consecutive student turns.
3. Distribution of functions of talk. We differentiated
between two speech functions in a discussion
that capture the division of authority and control:
nominating to speak and asking questions.
The second dimension, called Inquiry, assesses
the extent to which discussion participants are able to
engage in a meaningful dialogue focused on forming
and evaluating judgments about complex issues.
According to Burbules, inquiry requires generation and
investigation of alternatives along with “a process by
which these alternatives are tested or evaluated, and
either elaborated or rejected as inadequate” (Burbules,
1993, p. 117). The process involves asking questions
that allow for divergent answers, engaging in exploration
of alternative ideas, and supporting the collective
search for new understandings through reflection on
both the products of the discussion and the underlying
reasoning processes. We used the following codes to
evaluate Inquiry dimension of group discussions by
coding:
1. The divergence of the questions asked by teachers
and students, with three coding categories:
authentic, instructional, and assessment. Authentic
question is an open-ended substantive question
for which the speaker “has no prespecified answer”
(Nystrand, Wu, Garmon, Zeiser, & Long, 2003,
p. 145). Instructional questions allow for some
flexibility in responding, but they are primarily used
to lead students to a narrow range of answers
deemed acceptable by the teacher. Assessment
questions have one correct answer known to
the questioner (Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner,
2001).
2. The degree of intellectual engagement during the
discussion by coding:
a. Elaborated explanations, or instances of
students explaining “their thinking in a fairly
coherent way to others… They are elaborated
descriptions of how things work, why some
things are the way they are, or how they should
 be thought about” (Soter, Wilkinson, Murphy,
Rudge, & Reninger, 2007, p. 29). Elaborated
explanation refer to the contributions of an
individual student, rather than a group of
students (Soter et al., 2007).
b. Exploratory talk, or episodes of students
engaging in collective construction of meaning
(Soter et al., 2007). According to Mercer
(Mercer, 2003), exploratory talk “embodies a
valuable kind of ‘co-reasoning’ with speakers
following ground rules which help them to
share knowledge, evaluate evidence, and
consider options in a reasonable and equitable
way” (p. 153).
c. Low teacher feedback, or teacher responses
to student contributions that do not go beyond
“a perfunctory “Right” or “Wrong,” or “Good”
or an “Okay” (Nystrand et al., 2003, p. 146).
Alexander (2005) described such response,
as “a habitual and eventually phatic praise
rather than meaningful feedback” (p. 3).
3. Selected functions of teacher and student
contributions, including:
a. Alternative Perspectives, or teacher and
student contributions that expressed
disagreement with previously stated ideas
(Chinn et al., 2001).
b. Metacognitive statements, or process-
monitoring questions and responses which
reflect on the functioning of the group and its
participants.
Our preliminary results related to Community
dimension indicate that teachers in P4C classrooms
generally talked less than teachers in traditional
classrooms, with the difference especially pronounced
in relation to nominating students and asking questions.
In P4C classrooms, students had more control over
group interactions, having more turns, asking more
questions, and managing turn-taking. P4C classrooms
were also characterized by more student-to-student
turn sequences without intervening from the teacher.
These results are especially encouraging
considering well-documented preponderance of
monologic teaching in many classrooms where
“teachers talk and students listen” (Nystrand, 1997`, p.
3). Further, monologic instruction has been shown to
be resistant to change, so even when teachers have
progressive abstract notions about the educational
value of a dialogue, their actual classroom interactions
remain dominated and controlled by the teachers
themselves (Alexander, 2005; Alveraman, O’Brien, &
Dillon, 1990; Wilen, 2004). P4C teachers in the our
study were successful in releasing control over the
substantive and procedural aspects of classroom talk,
thus inviting students to become more active participants
in collaborative construction of knowledge. We are
currently working on examining the Inquiry dimension of
classroom talk and analyzing the differences between
P4C and Regular Instruction classrooms.
References
Alexander, R. J. (2005). Culture, dialogue and learning:
Notes on an emerging pedagogy. Paper presented
at the Conference of the International Association
for Cognitive Education and Psychology, University
of Durham, UK.
Burbules, N. (1993). Dialogue and teaching: Theory and
practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001).
Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature
discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4),
378-411.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use
language to think together. London: Routledge.
Mercer, N. (2003). Development through dialogue. In T.
Grainger (Ed.), The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in
Language and Literacy (pp. 121-137). New York:
Routledge.
Nystrand, M., Wu, L., Garmon, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D.
A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the
structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom
discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135-200.
QSR. (1997). QSR NVivo [Computer software]. Victoria,
Australia: Qualitative Solutions and Research.
Soter, A., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., &
Reninger, K. B. (2007). Analyzing the discourse of
discussion coding manual.Unpublished manuscript.