Facilitating Small-Group Discussions: An In-Depth Analysis of Teachers' Use of Discourse Moves During Quality Talk

• In Event: Leveraging Teacher-Researcher Collaborations to Support Students' Critical-Analytic Thinking Through Discussion

Abstract

Objective and Framework
Across contexts, educational stakeholders including teachers, researchers, and educational leaders have turned to discussion-based pedagogy as an empirically-supported approach to fostering students’ high-level comprehension and critical-analytic thinking. However, not all discussion approaches promote these skills. Instead, research findings suggest that stance, how teachers and students approach text during discussion (i.e., efferent, expressive, and critical-analytic), influences student outcomes. Although numerous studies on discussion have been conducted, how elements of an approach’s instructional frame, such as ability grouping, affect the extent to which each stance is reflected in teachers’ targeted discourse moves requires further investigation.

Method and Data Sources
In the present study, we employed an in-depth discourse analysis to investigate how ability grouping mediates teachers’ use of discourse moves. Over the course of one year, teachers (n = 4) and their students (n = 64) participated in Quality Talk (QT), a discussion approach emphasizing a critical-analytic stance supported by efferent and expressive stances. Students were grouped either homogeneously or heterogeneously by ability and participated in weekly teacher-led discussions about texts from their basal reader. Three dyad-teams of trained discourse coders analyzed 108 video-recorded discussions for instances of teacher moves shown to foster productive discourse (e.g., challenging, marking, prompting, modeling, and summarizing) (Murphy, Firetto, Greene, & Butler, 2017; Wei, Murphy, & Firetto, 2018). Every instance (n = 366) of a teacher move was transcribed, and transcripts were blinded to minimize bias. A team of coders then conducted a three-phase card sort to examine trends in teacher and student discourse across group composition.

Results
Results indicated that group composition was related to the extent to which teacher and student interactions reflected a critical-analytic, efferent, or expressive stance. Specifically, while all groups adopted a critical-analytic stance, they differed in the supporting level of efferent and expressive stances. In groups comprised of struggling readers, teachers’ discourse moves tended to reflect an efferent stance. Teachers employed prompts and challenges as a way of alerting students to their misconceptions about the text. Alternatively, moves employed by teachers during discussions with homogeneously grouped average and above average students were more likely to reflect a high critical-analytic stance including introducing alternative perspectives, modeling use of evidence, or challenging the link between claims and evidence. Teachers’ discussion reflections aligned with these trends in the discourse. Teachers also expressed a preference for discussions in heterogeneous groups, in which teacher moves tended to reflect high expressive and critical-analytic stances.

Significance
Discussion-based pedagogy can promote students’ ability to think critically, reason, and engage effectively with complex texts and content. Student outcomes, however, are affected by the context in which a discussion approach is implemented, including elements of the instructional frame. In order to afford students equitable educational experiences, teachers, researchers, and educational leaders must understand how these and other contextual elements can influence teacher and student interactions. These data further our understanding of the teachers' role facilitating small-group, text-based discussions and thus, enable us to support teachers and educational leaders as they implement discussion-based pedagogy in their classrooms and schools.

Authors

• Rachel Miriam Vriend Croninger, The Pennsylvania State University

• P. Karen Murphy, The Pennsylvania State University

• Sara Elizabeth Baszczewski, The Pennsylvania State University