Developing a Scheme for Coding Teacher Team Discourse at Scale: Methodological Challenges and Solutions

• In Event: 58.050 - Teacher Discussions of Problems of Practice: Conceptualizing and Investigating "Productive" Pedagogical Discourse

Abstract

An increasing number of scholars have turned their attention toward teacher dialogue about practice and how it may create opportunities for professional learning (e.g., Borko, et al, 2014; Cochran-Smyth & Grossman et al, 2010; Horn & Kane, 2015; Horn & Little, 2010; Lord, 1994; Nelson et al, 2010; Popp & Goldman, 2015; van Es et al, 2014). Based on a thorough review of the available literature on PLCs and teacher dialogue, we found that despite some inevitable differences among approaches and foci, there is considerable consensus about what is productive teacher dialogue about practice (i.e.that is conducive to professional learning): It is (a) rich in inquiry-oriented pedagogical reasoning (instead of mere information sharing); (b) characterized by a critical yet supportive atmosphere (instead of contrived collegiality); and (c) anchored in authentic representations of practice (instead of norms of non-interference). Existing empirical research mainly consists of in-depth analyses of selected cases, however, often collected during “boutique” PD initiatives and facilitated by external experts. In a current line of investigations, we endeavor to conduct quantitative analyses of teacher dialogue in school-based teacher teams, so as to empirically examine the conditions that promote productive dialogue and to test the effectiveness of a large-scale intervention program to train teacher leaders' facilitation of such meetings. A prerequisite for this research program is to develop a systematic, reliable and meaningful coding scheme that can be used at scale.
In this presentation, we present the results of these efforts and discuss some of the methodological challenges encountered;
First, whereas features of productive teacher dialogue have been described, this has rarely been accompanied by operational definitions that allow for systematic and reliable coding across settings and by different coders. One of the first methodological challenges we faced, then, was to translate the nuanced distinctions and features described in qualitative, in-depth analyses into systematic coding categories that were reliable, yet remained valid and meaningful. We will demonstrate the outcomes of this procedure with several examples. Other methodological considerations concerned the fluidity and rapid topic changes in natural, multi-participant teacher dialogue, the choice of data source (in situ coding vs audiotape coding vs coding written transcripts), methods of reliability assessments and choosing an appropriate unit of analysis (e.g., idea units vs topical units vs turns).
Our efforts resulted in two coding schemes, each with a different set of (dis)advantages and highlighting different aspects of teacher team dialogue:
(1) Coarse mapping tool: In situ coding of coarse features of entire teacher team meetings according to 8 sec units, mainly focusing on the identity of speakers, topical content and the use of representational materials (> 200 meetings coded currently).
Detailed, off-line coding of topical units: Based on written transcriptions, segmented into topically bounded units (30 – 120 sec) which are coded for content, participation frameworks, dialogue facilitation, disagreements, and inquiry-oriented talk.

Authors

• Miriam Babichenko, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

• Christa S.C. Asterhan, Hebrew University