Developing an analytic coding scheme for classroom dialogue

Developing an analytic coding scheme for classroom dialogue across cultural and educational contexts Sara Hennessy, Sylvia Rojas-Drummond, María José Barrera, Mariana Alarcón, Nube Estrada, Rocío García Carrión, Flora Hernández, José Harnández, Rupert Higham, Riikka Hofmann, Christine Howe, Ruth Kershner, Karen Littleton, Ana María Marquez, Fiona Maine, Neil Mercer, Haydée Pedraza, Rosa María Ríos, Omar Torreblanca, Ana Laura Trigo, Paul Warwick http: //www. educ. cam. ac. uk/research/projects/analysingdialogue/ BERA, London September 2014

Rationale & aims § International importance of understanding dialogue as a prime tool for teaching and learning; offers both practical benefits and insights into how people think collectively § Lack of a comprehensive, systematic and universallyapplicable framework for understanding how dialogue in action is used as a tool for classroom teaching & learning § Main aim is to design, test and share a methodological tool for analysing dialogic interactions… § …to encompass a wide variety of classroom settings, age groups, knowledge domains and sociocultural contexts, including technology-mediated dialogue.

Sociocultural theory § Following Vygotsky, a sociocultural perspective proposes that social interactions enable cognitive development; so for example a child can learn to reason alone by first engaging in collective reasoning with an adult or peer (e. g. Rogoff, 1990). § § Knowledge and meanings can be ‘co-constructed’ through communicative practices. This perspective highlights the importance of language as both a cultural and psychological tool (Daniels, 2003; Mercer 2000; Säljö, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978). § This means the structure and content of classroom talk may be crucial for the quality of education.

Dialogic teaching-and-learning* § Harnesses the power of talk to stimulate and extend children’s understanding, thinking and learning. § Promotes inquiry and joint construction of knowledge: it builds on, elaborates and synthesises others’ ideas. § Engages in ‘social modes of thinking’ where reasoning can be made visible to others. § Promotes equitable participation and sees all, including teachers, as co-learners. § Is open, critical and constructive: it explores, compares negotiates, and challenges different perspectives. *(Alexander, 2008; Hennessy, Wariwck & Mercer, 2011; Howe & Mercer, 2012; Higham et al. , 2014; Littleton, & Howe, . 2010; Littleton & Mercer, 2007; Mercer, 2000; Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2003; Rojas-Drummond et al. , 2010; Wegerif, 2007; Wells, 1999).

Dialogic teaching-and-learning § Involves teachers in open-ended questioning, feeding in ideas, reflecting, comparing and interpreting ideas. § Encourages learners to: articulate and justify their own points of view; appreciate and respond to others’ ideas; take extended turns. § Opens up for all a dialogic space (Wegerif, 2007) where: § new meanings emerge through attempting to understand others’ perspectives; § everyone’s contribution is taken as important; § ideas are not personal property in competition but are owned and shaped by all.

‘Dialogic teaching-and-learning’ (Vygotsky 1978)

Primary vs. Secondary (Higham et al, 2013)

Research Objectives 1) DEVELOP comprehensive methodological tool to analyse quality of dialogic interactions across educational settings 2) ILLUSTRATE with rich examples from observations across cultural contexts: focusing initially on whole class and group work in Mexico and UK schools, across subjects 3) ELABORATE generic scheme to cover use of digital technology (interactive whiteboards, computers, tablets): nonverbal + verbal dialogue (Hennessy, 2011) 4) APPLY methodological tool to broad databases: microgenetic and longitudinal analyses of quality of dialogue and effects on children’s learning 5) ADAPT scheme for teacher professional development in both countries.

Illustration of hierarchical and nested categories from the ethnography of communication (Hymes, 1972; Saville-Troike, 2003) Communicative Events (CE) Communicative Situation (CS) Communicative Acts (CA)

Coding scheme for analysing dialogic teachingand-learning interactions § Unit of analysis = observable CAs in educational contexts [e. g. provide counterargument, ask for elaboration] § Scheme contains 33 CAs, classified in 5 functional (mutually exclusive) clusters. § The scheme only codifies utterances that contribute to the dialogic interaction.

Evolution of clusters Collective Ask Invitation Reciprocal Propose Proposal Supportive Follow up Dialogue Cumulative Link Purposeful Goals Link Metacognition

Evolution of clusters Collective Ask Invitation Reciprocal Propose Proposal Supportive Follow up Dialogue Cumulative Link Purposeful Goals Link Metacognition

Coded Mexican excerpt Agent Writing about the prevalence of HIV in Mexico Invite Propose Dialog Link C 3 292 R Meta cog Here are some data about HIV in Mexico ((proposing a way to write the text)). D 2 293 How can we say that something comes next, what key word do we use? I 1 L 1 C 3 294 ‘Lastly’ ((answering with a key word)) P 5 C 1 295 No. R 296 I don’t know, what do you think? I 1 C 3 297 ‘Then’ ((suggesting another key word)) P 5 R 298 We have already talked about the good and the bad news, now what? I 1 D 9 299 ‘Besides’ the good and the bad news we have data ((proposing what they are going to write)) D 2 C 2 I 1 Invite alternative views P 5 Make relevant contribution D 2 Build on others' contributions D 9 Guide direction of dialogue? L 1 Refer back

UK video clip: How do you get knowledge?

Coded English excerpt Agent Turn How do you get knowledge? Invite Propose Dialog Link Metacog C 1 62 School is all about knowledge basically C 3 63 But how did the first person of the world got knowledge? … because Miss (Smith) says that’s maths knowledge D 7 C 1 64 [you know different things] P 1 C 2 65 C 4 66 C 2 67 and then told everybody else how to do it, and eventually through time, it evolved Yeah your parents teach you a lot of knowledge because… Because their parents taught them and then their parents taught them C 3 68 My parents taught me how to cook [. . . ] C 1 70 Again, you are born with knowledge, because if you are born with nothing, or maybe one thing you might try and fly P 1 P 5 Explain or justify Make relevant reasoning or solution contribution D 2 Build on others' contributions D 2 P 5 D 2 D 2 L 3 P 1 D 7 Challenge view / assumption L 3 Refer back

Conclusions § A ‘dialogic approach’ to investigating classroom interaction helps us understand how teachers and students co-construct knowledge. § An analytic scheme containing 33 codes describing dialogic teaching-and-learning has been iteratively developed, clustered and empirically tested § The CAs describe what participants may actually do and say as part of ongoing dialogic interactions. § The scheme can serve as a useful research tool to ground empirically the concept of ‘dialogic interaction’ in educational contexts… § …and to describe cultural differences. Added value of research across 2 different country contexts.

Next Steps §Further empirical trialling is in progress §Other contexts: ICT uses, different subject domains, developmental and education levels (pre-school to higher education), typical/atypical populations (e. g. children with Asperger’s syndrome), adults’ professional training. Chile. §Interactive digital version with expandable code definitions §An adapted version of the tool for use in initial and continuing teacher education programmes, including video exemplars & resources adapted to each country § Global codes under development as frameworks that may help to interpret sets of local CAs, eg “exploratory talk”, “coconstructive talk”, “extended questioning, ” etc

Invitation to participate! More info: Sara Hennessy sch 30@cam. ac. uk Sylvia Rojas-Drummond silviar@unam. mx http: //www. educ. cam. ac. uk/research/projects/analysingdialogue/ including this PPT

References Alexander, R. J. (2008) Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4 th ed. ). York: Dialogos. Daniels, H. (2004) Vygotsky and Pedagogy (3 rd ed. ). London: Routledge Falmer. Hennessy, S. (2011). The role of digital artefacts on the interactive whiteboard in mediating dialogic teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(6 ), 463 -586 Hennessy, S. , Mercer, N. y Warwick, P. (2011) A dialogic inquiry approach to working with teachers in developing classroom dialogue. Teachers College Record , 113 (9), 1906 -1959. http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1080/13540602. 2011. 554704 Higham, R. J. E. , Brindley, S. , Van de Pol, J. (2014). Shifting the primary focus: assessing the case for dialogic education in secondary classrooms. Language and Education , 28 (1), 86 -99. http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1080/09500782. 2013. 771655 Hymes, D. (1972). Models of interaction in language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes (Eds. ), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35– 71). London: Basil Blackwell. Littleton, K. , & Howe, C. (Eds. ). (2010). Educational Dialogues: Understanding and Promoting Productive interaction. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Mercer, N. (2000) Words and Minds: How we use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge. Mercer, N. & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction , 1, 12 -21. Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007) Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking: a socio-cultural approach, London: Routledge.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rojas-Drummond, S. M. (2000). Guided participation, discourse and the construction of knowledge in Mexican classrooms. In H. Cowie, D. van der Aalsvoort & N. Mercer (Eds. ). Social interaction in learning and instruction: the meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge. Exeter: Pergamon Press. 193 -213. Rojas-Drummond, S. , Littleton, K. , Hernández, F. & Zúñiga, M. (2010 ) Dialogical interactions among peers in collaborative writing contexts. Chapter 7. In Educational Dialogues: Understanding and Promoting Productive Interaction (Eds K. Littleton & C. Howe), pp. 128– 148. Routledge, Abingdon. Rojas-Drummond, S. M. , & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 39, nos. 1 -2, pp. 99 -111. Rojas-Drummond, S. , Torreblanca, O. , Pedraza, H. , Vélez, M. & Guzmán, K. (2013). ‘Dialogic scaffolding’: Enhancing learning and understanding in collaborative contexts. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2(1), 11 -21. Säljö, R. (1999). Guided participation, discourse and the construction of knowledge in Mexican classrooms. En H. Cowie, D. van der Aalsvoort & N. Mercer (Eds. ). Social interaction in learning and instruction: the meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge. Exeter : Pergamon Press. 193 -213. Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (3 rd ed. ). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wegerif, R. (2007) Dialogic, Education and Technology: Expanding the Space of Learning. New York: Springer. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry, Toward a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.